Independent Schools: Regulation of Proprietors

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 7th July 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I thank my hon. Friend for the intervention. I completely agree. The way in which the company has acted towards pupils, parents and staff is outrageous. The least it could do is to provide some clarity and support going forward. Later in my speech, I will ask the Minister about some lessons that can be learned.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady on securing this debate. She has brought to the attention of the House and the Minister to something that is incredibly important: the takeover of any school with little or no discussions with the staff, the principal, or the board of governors, little or no contact with the parents, and certainly no talk or discussions with those who have input into the school. Does she share my concern—I believe that she will—that when influences from outside this country have bought a school, through whatever the allegedly nefarious process may be, the only way in which that can be stopped is for the Government and our Minister to bring in legislation that ensures that it cannot happen over the heads of local people at a school of historical importance?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It seems that this overseas company had no intention of educating our children in the UK, and legislation should be strengthened or put in place to stop this happening again.

It is as though GGE saw the fallout of their decision to inform Malvern in advance and attempted to hide from any further scrutiny by giving the other schools zero notice. It is abhorrent. When I contacted GGE’s directors to demand answers, they were at pains to point out to me that they have done all they can to support staff and families. They even alluded to the Government’s introduction of VAT on independent school fees. That is nonsense. Since the VAT changes were announced, Durham high school’s roll only dipped from 288 to 281—a net loss of just seven pupils. The school has a physical capacity for 650 pupils, and a financial break-even point of roughly 350. A senior staff member said in their parting message:

“Whatever you read, this isn’t a VAT story. It isn’t a falling rolls or unstoppable decline story. The truth is deeper, and more complex, and eventually truth will out.”

It seems clear that there was never any genuine effort by GGE to make this school a success. Speaking to union representatives at the school, I am told that repeated requests to see even a basic plan for how the company would secure the school’s future were rebuffed.

What do we know about GGE? Very little seems to be the answer. It was only incorporated in the UK in April 2025, and I understand that it has not yet been possible to assess its level of available cash, debt levels, profitability or inter-company lending. The structure of the company seems equally opaque, spread across several companies, school-operating companies and overseas interests. One of those beneficial owners ultimately traces back to the Cayman Islands, with no transparency at that point.

What is clear is that one person holds a significant amount of power, and they were the person with overall control of the school until its closure. Shangqin Gao, a Chinese national, holds roughly 75% of GGE’s shares. As I understand it, the school has had no contact with this person. The House may note that this individual is also linked to two other businesses: Shine Space Management Ltd and Galaxy Capital Real Estate. The latter was incorporated only two years before the purchase of Durham high school.

All this background leads us to the crux of the situation: more than 280 children have been left stranded without a school, staff have been left without jobs and young women who sat their public exams this summer may not even be able to collect their results in the school where they studied. Local suppliers have been left facing significant losses due to unpaid invoices. Crucially, children with additional needs who thrived in this intimate environment have been thrown into limbo. They must now search for alternative specialist provision potentially miles away from home, or face being absorbed into mainstream settings.

Our local secondary state schools that provide top-class education and often win prestigious awards—such as St Leonard’s, Durham Johnston and Belmont—are all just about full. There is not enough capacity to easily absorb these pupils. As well as throwing these families into crisis, GGE has also heaped pressure on the local authority. Will the Minister liaise with Durham county council to ensure that the admissions team is appropriately supported?

The conduct of GGE in the final days, weeks and months of the school’s operation reveals the true nature of this business.

As the company ran down the school, the financial team carefully managed the remaining funds to ensure they could pay staff salaries for June, despite GGE blocking the school from paying suppliers. Yet days before payroll was due, an unexpected invoice was received from GGE that would have wiped out those payments entirely, and GGE required the massive bill to be paid that same day. Thankfully, the school business manager prioritised the livelihoods of the hard-working staff, paid the wages and ignored the demand. However, in a final blow to devastated staff, I heard just yesterday that the administrators have informed them they cannot claim unpaid salaries for July and August, despite already carrying out their work for the academic year.

A cynical mind would look at how Durham Education Limited was put into administration and conclude that it benefits a parent company to position itself as a major debtor upon any future sale, especially when the ultimate ownership of the land is in doubt. Despite assurances from GGE, the entire debacle bears the hallmarks of a land grab. In Durham, the prime real estate on which Farewell Hall sits is estimated to be worth around £10 million. That brings me to the core question: what can the Government do to stop predatory overseas companies asset-stripping our educational institutions and treating our children’s futures as real estate speculation?

Schools such as Durham high served as a safety valve for the local authority's overstretched school place allocations. Despite that, entire families have been thrown to the wolves so that an overseas corporate entity can access prime land on the edge of a historic city centre. Section 128 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 rightly gives the Secretary of State for Education the power to bar unsuitable individuals from managing independent schools. Yet with the opaque structure of the business and the fact GGE has been able to rapidly churn through directors at Companies House, shuffling responsibilities and moving its statutory administrative offices to anonymous London addresses, it seems that oversight on such businesses is patchy. How can we ensure in the future that what has happened in Durham, Malvern and Ruthin does not happen elsewhere?

To be clear, my key asks of the Minister are as follows. Will the Minister help families in Durham, Ruthin and Malvern get clarity on what steps were taken by the Department for Education, Estyn and Ofsted to ensure the suitability of GGE? Will the Minister commit to reviewing the governance structure of all the affected schools? Will she advise me whether an independent investigation could be called into GGE’s management of Durham, Malvern and Ruthin to establish exactly what happened? Will she advise me on efforts that the Government, the local authority or the school community can take to preserve the Durham high school site for educational use, rather than allow a historical education asset to disappear? Finally, will the Minister take steps to close corporate loopholes and ensure proper regulation is in place for foreign investors in UK schools? We need robust legal mechanisms within the DFE to prevent foreign capital from severing historical school properties from their educational purposes. We need statutory protections that stop predatory owners transferring freeholds out of educational charities into private, for-profit shell companies.

What happened at Durham high school will not simply go away. My constituents may be down but they are certainly not out, and they are driven by a desire for justice. Though they understand it may be too late for their beloved school, they wish no other family or hard-working member of school staff to have to go through the pain and uncertainty that they have felt.

Last Friday, my team joined families, pupils, staff and trade unionists outside the school gates for a final act of solidarity. The compassion, mutual respect and dignity that was on display is something that GGE would do well to learn from. I am sure that all of us across the House might agree that no matter the nature of the establishment, the education of our children is a public good, not a real estate portfolio. What happened to Durham, Ruthin and Malvern cannot be allowed to happen again.

I will close with the words of Mrs Middleton, the acting head for the school’s final weeks, who has been highly commended for the compassion and dedication that she has shown to the entire school community during the most horrendous circumstances:

“On the final day we came together. Of course, there was sadness. There were tears. But there was also laughter, celebration, joy, and a deep sense of knowing one another. The hardest words I have had to say over these past few weeks were: “It’s time to go.” No one moved. So I left the stage, and Mrs Rochester and I walked the children out. Senior Leaders had planned to stand outside, greet parents and clap the children out. All the staff joined us. And for over an hour we clapped, talked, cried, hugged and clapped again. In that hour there was no complaining. No anger. Just togetherness. A community to the very end.”

Early Years Funding: Hampshire

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Wednesday 1st July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the adequacy of early years funding in Hampshire.

It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. A Hampshire nursery manager recently told me:

“Sometimes the funding arrives so late that we are genuinely worried about making wages.”

That sentence has stayed with me, because it captures something that the national conversation about “free childcare” too often misses. The question is not simply whether Hampshire has enough childcare places on paper. It is also whether every family can access suitable, affordable and high-quality early education and childcare when they actually need it and whether providers have the funding and workforce to deliver that sustainably. Those are two very different questions, and today I want to address them both.

Let us be clear about the scale of the pressure that the sector is under. Providers are being hammered by rising costs: increased employer national insurance contributions, rising energy costs just to keep the lights on, business rates and more. One nursery provider in my constituency of North East Hampshire told me that their liability insurance had risen by 19% this year alone, and that was on top of a 59% jump in business rates.

Department for Education analysis published in May found that on average providers took in just £1.01 for every £1 that they spent in 2025, and nearly half of providers reported income that fell short of covering their costs. I am aware that one nursery in my constituency is required to subsidise the Government’s funded offer by more than £51,000 in this academic year alone. It cannot be right that a sector that is already operating on wafer-thin margins is left to absorb more and more tax rises.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this matter forward. She is right to highlight the funding shortfall, which is present across the whole United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It is forcing nurseries to close, driving up childcare costs and stopping parents returning to the workforce. Does she agree that the Government need to make this issue a priority in education to ensure that children are educated and parents can cope with the pressures that they are under?

[Alex Brewer]

Yes, I absolutely agree; that is a precise summary of the current position. When we think of early years, most of us automatically think of nurseries, but in many areas of the country, and especially North East Hampshire, many families rely on local childminders. Earlier this month, a constituent of mine, Lorna, told me that after almost 26 years of running her childminding business, she must close it because of mounting financial pressures. She has loved the job, but the lack of any promise of a better financial future has left her with no choice.

Every ambition that we hold for this system—more places, better outcomes and proper support for children with additional needs—depends on a stable, skilled and well-supported workforce. Parents do not use the language of workforce policy, but they feel its consequences all the same, including in high staff turnover, longer waiting lists, reduced flexibility and the particular difficulty of finding a place for a child with additional needs.

A Hampshire nursery manager put the underlying cause to me plainly: rising costs have not come with a matched uplift in the funding rate. Staffing alone accounts for three quarters of costs in the early years sector. That leaves early years settings particularly exposed to sudden changes, such as the increase in employer national insurance contributions. Providers cannot compete for the experienced senior staff necessary to deliver high-quality support, and high staff turnover leads to higher training costs.

Every parent stuck on a waiting list is living with the downstream consequence of a workforce crisis that starts with underfunding, and Hampshire reflects many of the challenges in microcosm. It is a large county, spanning urban, rural and coastal communities. Hampshire county council’s childcare sufficiency assessment points to the same challenges: expanding supply to meet the extended 30-hour entitlement; tackling recruitment and retention; and ensuring that rising demand does not squeeze out children with special educational needs or from disadvantaged backgrounds—the very children who stand to gain the most from a good-quality early years setting.

Free childcare makes for a great headline, but it has to be deliverable. As of September 2025, the county council projected that Hampshire would need an additional 2,100 childcare places in wards where supply is already limited just to meet the promise of 30 hours a week. This promise is not all it is made out to be. The figure of 30 hours is based on term-time care only, so for those parents who work full-time, that is spread out over 52 weeks, not 38. The rate for three and four-year-olds that is paid to settings is lower than the cost to provide the service, so those paying for additional hours are, in effect, subsidising the free provision. For those families who are barely getting by, with high living costs and stagnant wages for their own work, it is often more expensive for both parents to work. That is not good for our economy.

As with any business, cash flow is key, and providers across my North East Hampshire constituency tell me that they are paid in arrears, with funding for a month’s care landing in the last three days of that same month, compared with other counties that pay before the month even starts. So Hampshire nurseries are covering an entire month of wages, rent and bills with private fees. When that is combined with low or no profit margins, it sets the scene for instability and uncertainty. Young children, working parents and childcare providers all need stability in the sector to thrive, but the circumstances are far from ideal for that.

Nowhere is the funding gap starker than for children with special educational needs and disabilities. Before entering this House, I served as a school governor and ran a charity supporting children and young adults with Down’s syndrome and their families, so this is an issue I have seen up close from both sides of the school gate. Providers tell me that the pathway to secure support is long and difficult to navigate. By the time a child is identified, their needs are often already very high.

What funding does arrive frequently pays for only an enhanced ratio, which is no substitute for the one-to-one specialist care that many children need, and staff often lack the specialist training required. Indeed, in my previous line of work, it was the charity that stepped in to provide the training—a service with the uncertainty of being funded solely through donations and simply not available everywhere in the country. A child’s future should not be a postcode lottery.

Investing in our future generations is the best investment we can make, for them, for families and for society. That is why Liberal Democrats are calling for early years providers to be exempted from the rise in employer national insurance contributions. Hampshire’s early years providers are not asking for handouts; they are asking for the funding that was promised to arrive, to be enough and to be on time. A place on a spreadsheet is not the same as a place a family can use. A free hour that no provider can afford to deliver is not free at all. Our children’s futures, and those caring for them, deserve nothing less.

Antisemitism: University Campuses

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Sir John. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for introducing the debate, and I congratulate him on doing it so well. I thank all hon. Members who have spoken so far for their contributions highlighting the difficulties faced by our British Jewish communities and the work that needs to be done to protect them.

The StandWithUs UK “Voice of Students” report exposes a terrifying, deep-rooted national crisis across our higher education institutions. The traditional verbal hostility of recent years has escalated into raw intimidation, targeted harassment and physical violence against Jewish students.

I should have welcomed the Minister to his place, and I look forward to his contribution. I am sure it will be salient and will give us some reassurance, which is what we all seek from this debate.

It is no secret that I am a friend of the people and the nation of Israel—I have been all my life, and I continue to be. As I have said before and will say again, I recognise that Israel is not perfect, just as I am not perfect and nobody in this room is perfect. Israel does things that I have concerns about, but I stand by Israel whenever I get the opportunity, and today I will highlight the issue of antisemitism on university campuses.

When I visited Israel some two years ago, we had an opportunity to visit the Nova music festival site and the kibbutzim. If ever we needed to see man’s inhumanity to man and the hatred that the Hamas terrorists have for Israel, that was the day we saw it and that is why I am here to highlight the issue of antisemitism today.

As a Unionist, I believe fundamentally in the rule of law, the right to personal safety and the preservation of free inquiry, yet British universities are failing in their most basic legal and moral duties to protect a religious minority. Most damningly, academic staff are increasingly implicated in fostering, legitimising and actively participating in this marginalisation, which is the reason why we are debating the issue today.

I will highlight a few extracts from the testimony bringing this to light that most shocked me, and I am sure it will be shocking to every Member of the House. Forgive the terminology, but I am going to quote exactly the words used in a number of universities. These are direct quotes of the slurs being faced. Although they are disturbing, they must be put in the Hansard record. For that purpose, I will quote them exactly. At Royal Holloway, a student was subjected to jihadist threats to blow up the Jewish society and faced vile text messages calling him a “faggot Jew boy”. He was trailed by students taking photos to mark him out as a “Zionist”.

At the University of Birmingham, a lecturer told a student to shorten her name because it sounded “very Jewish”, while others performed Nazi salutes and created a group chat entitled, “No Jews allowed”. At King’s College London, a student faced a Kafkaesque punishment by the university to write a 1,000-word essay explaining why displaying an Israeli flag was wrong. He should come to my office, because I have one there and am proud to show that flag and let people know.

At City St George’s, a Jewish student was ambushed from behind and nearly pushed down a staircase, while campus protests featured Arabic chants calling for the literal killing of Jews. That is most outrageous.

[Steve Yemm]

I occasionally meet Jewish students at the University of Nottingham for dinner on a Friday evening, hosted by Chabad. Those students talk about being proud of their faith, but they frequently question whether they can be openly Jewish on campus. Does the hon. Member agree that no student should ever feel that they have to hide their identity on a university campus?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is another to add to the words of shame from some universities across the United Kingdom. I want to refer to Bangor University, where a professor physically confronted a Jewish student while screaming medieval blood-libel tropes and calling him a “baby killer”. If that level of targeted vicious harassment were directed at any other minority group on campus, the institutions would be shut down, funding would be stripped away and the perpetrators would be immediately expelled. That is what would happen if it were anybody else but, because it is Jews, what happens? When it comes to Jewish students, we see institutional paralysis and a culture of denial.

As an MP from Northern Ireland, I want to comment on Queen’s University Belfast and Ulster University, which are by no means immune to this toxic atmosphere. We have seen a deeply alarming trend where extreme political activism on these campuses has crossed the line from legitimate debate into outright intimidation and the exclusion of Jewish and Zionist voices. I have spoken personally to some of those Jewish students who have given me their testimony and told me their stories. They told me that on occasion they are scared to be active on their own campuses.

When Jewish students in Belfast or Londonderry feel compelled to hide their identity, skip lectures, avoid campus spaces out of fear for their safety, the leadership of those universities has failed fundamentally. Higher education in Northern Ireland must be a neutral, safe and meritocratic environment for everyone. Vice-chancellors in our Province must not remain silent or indifferent. They must apply the exact same zero-tolerance approach to anti-Jewish racism as they do to any other form of sectarianism or discrimination, ensuring that all universities remain places of learning, rather than hotbeds of radicalisation and exclusion.

The report rightly underscores that modern antisemitism has evolved into a toxic political framework. I challenge anybody to say otherwise. Cowardly, it hides behind the shield of extreme anti-Zionism, denying Jewish self-determination and calling for the destruction of Israel. That is a cynical abuse of free speech, designed to make campuses “judenrein”, the German for “Jew-free”. God forbid that day should ever come to this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

We must draw a firm line in the sand, and I believe Members have done that today in this Chamber. These are my two asks of the Minister. First, the UK Government must state unequivocally that anti-Zionism, including calling for the destruction of the Jewish state, will be treated with the exact same seriousness and moral clarity as classical racial antisemitism. Secondly, we must follow the successful precedent set in the United States and summon vice-chancellors before a parliamentary Select Committee to look us in the eye and account for the catastrophic failures in all the universities I mentioned, and probably in many others, such as Nottingham. How many are there?

Our universities cannot remain safe havens for hate speech and terror sympathisers. I believe it is time to restore law, order and basic human decency to campuses. The first step must be the determination in this Chamber today to send a message that while the United Kingdom supports freedom of speech—I believe in that with all my heart and will stick up for it—we do not tolerate threats of violence. These examples show that the line has been crossed and that action must be taken. Let it start today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister]

The hon. Member is absolutely right to make that point. To pick up one thread of today’s debate, a number of hon. Members have raised the power of algorithms, which feed off people’s fury and anger and the differences that exist between them. Many of the themes highlighted in this debate could equally apply to other groups in society where our attention is also needed.

Government-funded training is already supporting university staff and leaders to recognise antisemitism, support Jewish students and respond appropriately when concerns arise. Last week, we agreed to fund projects through our innovation fund to help students navigate misinformation, engage constructively with difficult issues and develop a deeper understanding of different faiths and communities. We are also developing a new community cohesion framework with students in partnership with the University of Salford and the National Union of Students. Alongside that work, we continue to support University Jewish Chaplaincy to provide pastoral wellbeing and practical support to Jewish students across the country.

In his opening speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds South West and Morley asked about the statutory framework. Given the time remaining, I will give the brief update that the Office of the Independent Adjudicator is due to update its good practice framework for higher education providers in handling reports of harassment later this year. In addition, we are working with the sector to improve transparency and accountability for tackling antisemitic abuse. We are also working with Universities UK to undertake a rapid assessment of institutional disciplinary and incident reporting processes and we will develop recommendations and priority actions in autumn this year.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the Minister for that very comprehensive answer. In my contribution, I suggested that when universities fall short of their obligations, their vice chancellors should be called in to answer to a parliamentary Committee as to why no action had been taken. Does the Minister consider that that would be an effective way of ensuring that universities protect Jewish students and those of Jewish faith? Could calling in vice chancellors be a way of squeezing universities—and squeezing them tight?

[Josh MacAlister]

The hon. Member is right to highlight the essential aspect of accountability. The Office for Students has been given additional powers in recent years. It is also true that the scale of the challenge that we see with antisemitism on university campuses, and the challenge that many universities are facing in meeting their obligations to uphold the freedom of speech while also creating the climate and culture necessary for freedom from intimidation, may lead a Select Committee to hold an inquiry on that. It would, of course, be a matter for Parliament and a Select Committee to do so, but if that were to happen, the Department for Education would be very interested in its findings.

We know that many of the conspiracy theories and hateful tropes that underpin antisemitism are also features of extremist ideologies. Left unchallenged, they can create an environment in which radicalisation becomes more likely. At their most serious, they can form part of a pathway towards terrorism. Prevent data shows that in the year to March 2025, there were 8,778 referrals, 21% of which were linked to extreme right-wing concerns and 10% to Islamist extremism. Although Prevent does not record antisemitism as a stand-alone category, those figures illustrate how antisemitic narratives can, and often do, form part of extremist worldviews that carry a risk of terrorism or serious harm.

Most antisemitic incidents fall well below the threshold for Prevent intervention. Nevertheless, the data demonstrates that, in the most serious cases, ideas rooted in historical antisemitic prejudice can become part of a trajectory towards terrorism. That is why, through our wider Protecting What Matters programme, we are taking action to challenge antisemitism and extremism wherever they arise. We are strengthening oversight of universities’ Prevent duties; updating guidance on external speakers and events, which is due to come out very soon; improving our ability to identify emerging extremist activity; enhancing whistleblowing protections; and increasing transparency around incidents of antisemitism.

Lifelong Learning: “University of the Air” White Paper

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 16th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) for highlighting the wonderful work done by those institutions that are slightly off the beaten educational path, so to speak. Although the higher education sector has changed dramatically in the past 60 years, the Open University has continued to evolve, change and adapt while remaining true to its founding mission. From its inception, it has moved with the times. What began with television broadcasts, radio programmes and handwritten papers has now become a model of digital innovation and interactive online learning.

It is always a real pleasure to see the Minister in his place. We look forward to his answers to the questions we will ask, and I will have some in my contribution. The Open University came to the fore, if we are looking back just to the last few years, during the pandemic lockdown, when it led the way. Remote teaching was suddenly introduced in schools and universities, but the OU had already been delivering distance learning effectively for decades; it was leading the way at that time. Although many institutions were forced to rush and to improvise a remote learning model, the Open University was drawing on years of experience to support its students.

The Open University has given countless opportunities to working-class people who would otherwise never have had the chance to earn a degree. For many, the route to traditional universities had been out of reach, but the Open University offered a second, third or indeed fourth chance, producing graduates who have gone on to become nurses, teachers, engineers and community leaders, with many returning to the OU to complete their master’s degree and PhD. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann) referred to the 65 who were on a course in his time as Health Minister and to the fact that it is now 600. That indicates just how many have been able to take advantage of this opportunity and to improve their life, improve their qualifications and improve life for others as a result.

The Open University’s commitment to inclusion was there from its inception. Long before diversity, equity and inclusion became a formal policy, the Open University had those values in place. Jennie Lee’s model has always welcomed students from every walk of life, judging them not on their past qualifications, age, sexual orientation, race or creed, but only encouraging them in their desire to learn—their motivation, their complete goal and purpose, and their desire to do more. It has been particularly transformative for women who put their ambitions on hold to raise families, meaning that they could return to education as mature students, often becoming the first in their family to graduate from university.

I can give one example. My hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) is away, but I know from his discussions with me that his daughter was one of those women. She wanted to have a family, so then returned to the Open University at a later stage to learn education. That mature student with a family took an Open University degree and is now head of her department. My hon. Friend’s daughter is one example that is replicated dozens or perhaps hundreds of times across Northern Ireland and thousands of times across the United Kingdom.

The Open University in Northern Ireland has delivered particularly impactful outreach in prisons and working-class communities. Those things are sometimes lost, but they should not be. I will share two examples of initiatives: the Shankill women’s centre in Belfast and the Kilcooley women’s centre, in the constituency of the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton). They do excellent work, not just in North Down but in Strangford, in partnership with the Open University. I have worked with them over the years as they have helped women to achieve goals they never thought they could.

The Open University has brought higher education directly into communities that have historically felt excluded from it. If we can do that—if women and men can see the opportunities, as I have witnessed over the years—that is good news. The OU’s scope is remarkable. Graduates include men and women from their 20s to their 90s; Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly; and fellow Members of this House, including the hon. Member for South Antrim. A member of my office staff, who took an Open University degree, achieved her goal with those qualifications and advanced what she is able to do. That demonstrates the depth of its impact.

In our prisons, the Open University has delivered life-changing opportunities. For many inmates, Open University courses have provided purpose and a pathway to a better future after release. At justice questions in the Chamber, we often ask, as I have done, to keep people away from the unsavoury parts of prison life and give them an opportunity to do something different when they leave. It is a wonderful opportunity for inmates to have the Open University in prisons across the land. I hope the Minister will confirm that what we have done in Northern Ireland can be done on the UK mainland as well. What is being done to encourage and enable those in prison to take courses and see a different future, one that they perhaps would never have seen if they had not been in prison? It is a golden opportunity to shape life and do better.

Today, a higher number of young people than ever are opting to enrol with the Open University after A-levels but, because it is not currently included in the UCAS system, the OU is a less visible choice than traditional brick universities. I ask the Minister to consider including the Open University in the UCAS system to ensure that it is a legitimate and visible post A-level choice for young people, alongside mainstream institutions. It should be, it must be, and perhaps the Minister will confirm that it will be.

The things that improve a society more than anything else are access to good healthcare, access to opportunities and a choice in education. The Open University continues to impact and change the lives of hundreds of thousands of students every year, who balance work, family life and life’s challenges with their studies. The OU offers no barriers to learning to anyone of any age. It is the very definition of lifelong learning, just as Jennie Lee envisaged many years ago. With the hon. Member for Southport and the hon. Member for South Antrim—and the party spokespersons and the Minister, whose speeches will follow mine—I celebrate the OU for its extraordinary and continuing contribution to people’s lives. It is lovely to see something that we Brits have done well.

[Robin Swann]

Reflecting on the contributions so far, it is also worth noting that the Open University supports the members of our British armed forces through its courses.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member for reminding us that many in the armed forces have taken that opportunity. The opportunity is there within their busy lives, and the opportunity is clear. We must ensure that this proud and uniquely British success story keeps opening doors for generations to come. That has to be the ambition and the goal, and that is what we are doing.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Patrick Hurley) on securing this very timely debate and on the characteristically thoughtful case he made. I also give credit to the hon. Member for South Antrim (Robin Swann), a graduate of the Open University himself, who reminded us of the analogue age of VCRs and the magic of Sir David Attenborough.

I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for highlighting the genuine inclusivity of the Open University from its inception. He was also right to highlight the importance of prisoner education. Although it is not within my area of responsibility, I am very passionate about it, and I believe that the Open University and other providers have a really important role to play, given the captive nature of the audience and the chance for prison to be a place where people can genuinely turn their lives around.

I want to answer the question about UCAS before I turn to the wider debate. The Open University chooses to manage applications directly, partly because of the need for flexibility beyond the normal academic cycle, but information about OU courses, including modular courses, is available on the UCAS website.

I am keen not to get drawn too far away from the topic of the Open University, but I will respond in short to the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin), who raised issues regarding level 7 apprenticeships. This is an area simply of disagreement on policy and on where the resources that sit behind the apprenticeships levy—which is now the growth and skills levy—should rest. I am really keen, as is the Education Secretary, for those resources to be targeted very much at those who might not have taken the university path and for those entry-level apprenticeship routes to be funded to the max. That is why that policy decision was made. I stand by it and believe it was the right decision on balance for the use of those resources.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southport speaks in this debate not just as an advocate for lifelong learning but as living proof of its potential. As he spoke about movingly, his example is of someone who enrolled with the OU at the age of 30, and five years later emerged with both an undergraduate degree and a master’s degree to their name. That, for me, is the Open University’s mission in a nutshell—not a makeshift second chance, but a genuinely world-class route to opportunity for people who were not on academic pathways at the age of 18. That is why his advocacy carries such weight. In Southport, he has carried that conviction into the community at the heart of his constituency, championing the learning festival that took place in the town last year and being a strong advocate for improving educational opportunities more broadly. I have been lobbied many times about school buildings by him, so I can attest to that.

As my hon. Friend explained, it will be 60 years ago next February since another Labour Minister, Jennie Lee, published the White Paper, “A University of the Air”. She did so in the face of immense scepticism. Whitehall was snooty, the press was cynical and much of the establishment argued that the money should be spent elsewhere, but Jennie Lee was, in Harold Wilson’s words, “a tigress”. At a famous Cabinet meeting at Chequers just before the 1966 election, she argued that while the national health service was the greatest creation of the post-war Labour Government, the “University of the Air” would make

“just as much difference to the country.”

The White Paper made a radical argument that higher education should be open to all, regardless of background or prior qualifications, that learning should be flexible, rigorous and lifelong, and that new technology would carry academic excellence far beyond the walls of traditional institutions. Jennie Lee won that argument, and 60 years on, every part of that vision—open access, flexibility and technology in service of excellence—reads less like history and more like a description of the task that sits in front of us today.

The Open University, the institution founded as a consequence of that White Paper, is today the largest academic institution in the UK, with students in all 650 parliamentary constituencies. Since 1969, it has taught more than 2.5 million students worldwide. Three quarters of its undergraduates arrive with no previous higher education qualifications. The open door that Jennie Lee promised is still open.

In the last five years alone, more than 15,000 people who began studying without any A-levels have earned higher education qualifications through the Open University. Two thirds of its students are working while they study. It is learning that fits around life—not the other way around. The OU was never second best: at the last assessment, 82% of its research impact was rated world leading or internationally excellent, and last year it was awarded gold—the highest ranking—in the teaching excellence framework.

[Jim Shannon]

We all, including the Minister, recognise that the Open University reaches out to those who are perhaps isolated and lonely. It gives them an opportunity to focus their attention on a degree, thereby giving them hope for the future. That is sometimes underestimated, but it is critical.

[Josh MacAlister]

I completely agree. I will turn now to the Government’s actions, which will take the Open University to its next chapter, so that those opportunities are spread even more across our great country.

Last October, we published the “Post-16 education and skills” White Paper. There is a powerful alignment between the Open University’s mission to widen access and our own vision, set out in that White Paper, for a world-leading skills system that breaks down barriers to opportunity. The strategy in the White Paper is the blueprint for delivering our new target for two thirds of young people to be participating in higher-level learning—academic, technical or apprenticeships. We are determined to break the damaging link between background and success, and we want more people from all backgrounds to be able to access higher education as part of that.

As part of our reforms, the lifelong learning entitlement —a policy from the previous Government that I am very pleased we are continuing, with cross-party support—represents one of the most significant student finance reforms in a generation. For the first time, it establishes a single, flexible funding system covering levels 4 to 6 across further and higher education, enabling people to learn, upskill and retrain throughout their working lives.

The rationale for the entitlement is clear. More than a third of vacancies go unfilled due to skills shortages, and around 80% of the 2030 workforce are already in employment. However, the current system was largely designed for younger, full-time students and lacks the flexibility that adults in work need. The LLE will expand access to higher-quality, flexible education and training, promote learner mobility and ensure that providers can respond to the needs of learners, employers and the wider economy.

Sixty years ago, a White Paper of just a few pages was dismissed as vague, insubstantial and impractical. Today, the institution it created has taught more than 2 million people, with my hon. Friend the Member for Southport among them. That is the test that Jennie Lee set us: not whether an idea is convenient, but whether it changes lives. She insisted that there could be no question of offering students a makeshift project, inferior in quality to other universities. Sixty years on, that standard still binds us.

From January next year funding will, for the first time, follow the learner, module by module, at any stage of life. Our ambition that two thirds of young people reach higher-level learning is matched by an entitlement that lasts to 60, because opportunity should not have a closing date. Jennie Lee’s revolution was to say that the door to education should never close behind someone. The task of the next 60 years is to hold that door open wider still, in Southport and in every community like it. When our learners thrive, our country thrives.

Home-to-School Transport

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for her diligent work as a member of the PAC, and for making that point about SEND, which I will come on to during my speech.

Local authorities in England spent £2.6 billion on home-to-school transport in 2024-25, which was a real-terms increase of 70% since 2015-16. SEND transport alone more than doubled in cost over that same period, and it now accounts for £2 billion of that total. These are enormous sums, but remarkably, the PAC found that the Department for Education does not know whether this spending is achieving value for money. It does not have the data needed to oversee the system effectively, and it cannot adequately measure the relationship between transport and school attendance.

The consequences of that failure are visible in other figures: some 1 million young people in the UK are not in education, employment or training, and one in five children of compulsory school age misses at least a day of school per fortnight, which rises to one in three at sixth-form age. The Department’s own assessment looks only at transport disruptions on the day they occur, not the wider issue of whether the system is keeping children in school. This is a serious blind spot, and one that the Government need to address.

This is not just a North Yorkshire problem; the County Councils Network has warned that three quarters of councils are expected to tighten mainstream transport eligibility in the coming years. What is happening in my constituency today, and across North Yorkshire, is a preview of what families across rural England will face if this direction of travel is not reversed. Nowhere is the picture more stark than in some of the stories that my constituents have told me, which is why I secured this debate today.

At the heart of the problem is a growing disconnect between two systems that are supposed to work together but increasingly do not. We have a school admissions system built around catchment areas and feeder school relationships, and a home-to-school transport framework that has been interpreted ever more narrowly as being for the “nearest school only”.

For many years, county councils bridged that gap pragmatically by offering transport to the nearest or catchment school. That reflects the realities of rural England, where many children live well beyond walking distance, where public transport is sparse or often non-existent, and where the geography means that the nearest school on the map is often not the most practical school to reach—sometimes there is a dale in the way, sometimes a river crossing, and sometimes a simple county boundary that bears no relation to how communities actually function.

As budgets tighten and authorities retreat towards the statutory minimum provision, councils are removing catchment transport and reverting to nearest school only. In rural areas like North Yorkshire, the consequences are severe and they are being felt right now. Within days of being elected, the issue of home-to-school transport was landing in my email inbox, and it has not stopped since. North Yorkshire council changed its transport policy to base eligibility on nearest school only, rather than the nearest or catchment school. The council says this is to address rising costs, which are now expected to exceed £52 million—one of the three largest areas of the council’s expenditure—with unsubstantiated claims of savings of up to £3 million over the next seven years.

I understand budgetary pressures, and I understand that local authorities are being squeezed from every direction, but understanding a pressure does not simply mean accepting the response to it uncritically, when the policy is clearly not working. The system that North Yorkshire council uses to calculate the nearest school is not publicly available, so families receive decisions with no ability to interrogate the methodology behind them. That opacity alone is a problem, but when we look at what the methodology is actually producing, it becomes something worse than opaque; it becomes absurd.

The council measures distance using the shortest available walked route to school, which sounds reasonable until we look at what counts as a “walked route”. That includes riverside paths, farm tracks, roads with no pavements or street lights, cliffside grass tracks and hiking paths over the dales. Campaigners have discovered that the council’s mapping tool has even been thought to include a private farm track and a ford crossing of a river as an available walking route to school. In reality, the ford is passable only by tractor and the track is on private land. One family appealed successfully against the use of the route, but it remains on the council’s mapping system, ready to be used again.

The School Transport Action Group has documented routes that children have been expected to follow, including climbing over metal barriers on the A64 and using paths that cross an active military firing range. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view of whether any of those constitute a “nearest available walked route”, in North Yorkshire council’s words. STAG, which was formed to fight the changes, has done determined and important work in documenting the human and financial cost of the policy. I pay particular tribute to Jo Foster, whose campaigning on the issue has been tireless and has helped bring the national attention that it warrants. STAG puts the situation plainly:

“North Yorkshire Council has lost the plot on home to school transport”,

and I am inclined to agree. More than 1,000 families have been affected, with more than 200 appeals and 20 ombudsman cases in the past year alone. A senior councillor who voted for this very policy has publicly admitted that it contains errors, and some families have been left as losers. This is not a rounding error; it is a clear policy failure.

STAG has completed a survey of families going through the process right now, the class of 2026. The group has 60 responses so far, and the findings are telling: nearly 59% applied to a school because it was their catchment school, more than a third already had siblings there, and 84% live in towns and villages that have a school bus going to their chosen catchment school, yet 73% will not be eligible for free transport. Nearly two thirds of those families have no back-up plan at all.

Some have told STAG what their options look like in practice. One parent said:

“My back-up plan is to leave my job so I can drive my child to school.”

Another said:

“We would have to consider driving, but we both travel with work and it wouldn’t allow us to do our current jobs.”

A single parent wrote:

“I would not be able to work. I am a single parent household.”

One parent captured the particular absurdity of sibling cases:

“I shall have to take extra overtime at work in order to pay for my second child to sit on a bus that my eldest child is already on.”

Those families who plan to buy a paid-for bus pass face a further cruelty. Those passes will not be confirmed until August. They will be subject to availability and can be withdrawn with one week’s notice. The council has made it clear that its intention is to phase out catchment routes entirely, as soon as possible. Families are therefore being asked to plan their working lives around a service that may not exist by the time that their child starts secondary school.

Those are not edge cases; they are predictable, documented consequences of a policy that has stripped the transport system away from the admissions system it is supposed to support. The costs have not disappeared; they have simply been transferred from the council to the rural families who can least afford them. Council officers have described the changes as ensuring “fairness and consistency”, but I will put some individual stories on the record and let Members judge that for themselves.

Leanne lives in a village outside Harrogate. Her daughter has been waiting three and a half years for a diagnosis, but is on the SEN register and has a PDA—pathological demand avoidance—profile with emotional-based school avoidance. There is no public bus through her village and no safe walking route. Leanne’s other child has Down’s syndrome and an education, health and care plan, and cannot travel to school safely alone. Both children need to be at school at the same time; Leanne and her husband both work full time. Under the new policy, they have been denied free transport to the nearest suitable school and are now paying £94 a month for a bus permit. She told me:

“The system is broken and does not take into account personal circumstances or rural villages’ needs.”

I agree with her entirely.

David lives in Upper Wharfedale. Every morning he drives in convoy with his neighbours, following the school bus past his house, because his neighbours qualified under the old policy, but he did not. For him, the bus goes to the nearest primary school, the only school that anyone in the local area has attended for 60 years, along the only safe route available. North Yorkshire council, however, is now saying that his children’s nearest school is Hawes, in Wensleydale. To get there, they would have to cross Fleet Moss, one of the highest and most remote routes in the country, which is treacherous in winter and frequently impassable. David and his family moved to the dales five years ago to run a farm diversification scheme, but they would never have come had this policy been in place then. He has told me that it will be

“the death of these communities, and that’s not hyperbole.”

I believe him.

Sophie, a friend I went to high school and college with, lives in one of the villages straddling multiple local authority boundaries, with a Doncaster postcode, North Yorkshire council oversight, an East Yorkshire postal address and a West Yorkshire phone number. Her children’s primary school cohort has been scattered across four secondary schools, in different local authorities and in four different directions. She made the point with her characteristic directness: it cannot possibly be more cost-effective to fund transport to four separate schools in four different directions than it would be to fund one bus to one school. The policy is not just unfair to families, but undermining the purpose that it is meant to be achieving.

There is also a wider consequence that is often not discussed. One in four small primary schools in North Yorkshire stands to lose pupils because of this policy. Small secondary schools in Settle, Whitby and Boroughbridge face an existential threat. When we hollow out the transport routes that sustain these schools, we do not just inconvenience rural families, but undermine the schools themselves and the rural communities they serve.

I also want to raise the issue facing SEND families specifically, and the additional injustice of a cliff edge at 16. I want to tell this Chamber about Noah, whose mother Catherine has shared his story with me. Noah deferred starting primary school by a year because he was unable to walk. After winning an appeal to attend St John’s, North Yorkshire council offset that deferred year and placed him in year 8. The consequence— I want colleagues to sit with this for a moment—is that Noah will now receive one fewer year of education than his peers, and four years of free transport rather than five because his transport entitlement ends at 16. He has already had more taken from him than other children, through no fault of his own, and the system’s response is to take even more.

Noah cannot walk independently and requires one-to-one support. His taxi to school has become the highlight of his day because it is the one moment where he does not feel dependent on his mum—when he can feel something like freedom. His family have one income, claim universal credit and have little to no savings; they cannot find the money needed to pay the monthly costs for school transport. When Noah turns 18, the assumption is that his mum will simply be able to drive him because she has a Motability vehicle, which will strip away his independence that took so long to build. This is not a bureaucratic edge case; the system does this to families like Noah’s without apology.

That is not an isolated experience. The Public Accounts Committee found that 40% of families with young people with SEND said that they needed to give up work because of transport provision ending when their child turned 16. Colleges report students failing to start courses because transport had not been agreed. I believe that there was an issue across the border in Leeds, where the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman has already found the council at fault for its approach to post-16 SEND transport, identifying both individual injustice and systemic failure. However, families continue to report inconsistent decisions, inadequate assessments and personal travel allowances that do not cover the actual costs.

The charity Contact put it clear in evidence to PAC: the policy is simply not working post 16. The change in entitlement can feel like a cliff edge. For families who have spent years building routines and supporting a young person with complex needs, that cliff edge can be devastating for the young person and for every member of their family around them. We cannot have a system that claims to support inclusion and participation while simultaneously pulling the transport that makes participation possible.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I wanted to come along and support the hon. Gentleman in bringing this debate forward. He is a very assiduous MP in this House, whether it be on the Back Benches in the Chamber or leading debates in Westminster Hall, and I want to congratulate him on that. I also add my support to what he is hoping to achieve because, although this is not a responsibility for the Minister—this issue is devolved in Northern Ireland—we have similar problems when it comes to SEND issues, disabled children and road safety. In his quest to have a better system, I wish him well. I hope that, back home in Northern Ireland where it is devolved—the Minister here has no responsibility for it—we will see changes as well.

[Tom Gordon]

I thank the hon. Member for his contribution. As ever, he puts his point eloquently and passionately. I agree that, no matter where a SEND child is living in this United Kingdom, they deserve a lot better than they are getting at the moment.

I want to press the Minister on a number of specific points. The single most impactful achievable change that this Government could make is also the simplest. The statutory guidance on home-to-school transport should be updated so that the minimum provision becomes the nearest or catchment school, rather than solely the nearest suitable school. That one change would restore the alignment between admissions and transport that rural families depend on. It would give councils a clear framework and remove the incentive to reinterpret eligibility ever more narrowly. It would protect the community-school relationships that anchor rural life, and it would not even require primary legislation. I urge the Minister to give that serious consideration.

Secondly, I urge the Minister to impress on her colleagues at the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government the need to reinstate the rural services delivery grant. The rural premium matters enormously for local authorities such as North Yorkshire, where distances are not a policy choice, but a geographical fact. Cutting that grant has had real consequences for the decisions that local authorities have to make, and those consequences are being borne by families in villages across the dales, across my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough, and in North Yorkshire more widely.

Children’s Social Care: Enduring Relationships Strategy

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 4th June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend and neighbour is right to highlight the leadership of Councillor Emma Williamson, who is herself care-experienced. She has brought that experience to political office in a way that is making real change happen across Cumberland. One of the things I was proudest to attend as a Member of Parliament, and as the Minister for Children and Families, was the launch of the enrichment event in my constituency last year. It is what Emma refers to as the bank of mam and dad. It is a fund that Emma and the team at Cumberland have set up to create an account with money that can go to young people who have something happening in their life. It could be to buy them a vehicle or to put down a deposit on a house. It is about having that flexibility through family finances that many of us benefit from but take for granted. Those who are care leavers often do not have it.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister so much for his positive statement—I do so not in the salubrious way that the right hon. Member for New Forest West (Sir Desmond Swayne) did, but with the same sincerity. I also thank the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for all that she has done in this House for children. It is perhaps not always recognised, but it should be, because her contribution has been significant.

This is a massive issue back home in Strangford and across Northern Ireland. The Minister will know that Northern Ireland heavily outpaces England in keeping children within their wider family circle, with kinship and friends care at more than 50%. It is clear that children are happier if kept with siblings and in familiar circumstances, so how will the Minister and the Government further support those who would consider kinship care but are hampered in their ability to access appropriate housing for family care and need bigger houses? How can the Minister ensure that larger family homes are available UK-wide for those truly in need?

[Josh MacAlister]

That is a great question, because it gets to the heart of how the system behaves when it finds a parent who is perhaps struggling with a substance misuse problem, or is in a violent relationship, or has mental health needs and cannot continue to look after the child by themselves, but could be an important part of that child’s life for the foreseeable future, and when there are relatives saying, “We can help. We can be part of the solution. We do not need this child to go into the care system.” There needs to be a mechanism to fund those solutions, and that is what family network support packages do. The £2.4 billion that I referred to is available to fund those family network support packages. In the kinship zones, we are expecting much higher use of those FNSPs so that we can properly evaluate things. When I looked at the differences in the care population around the UK in the review, it was striking that the strength of civil society in Northern Ireland was one of the reasons, perhaps—this is just an idea—why communities were better able to come together around those children who might be at risk of going into care.

Children: Development of Essential Skills

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship as always, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for highlighting this essential issue. The Democratic Unionist party is committed to the development of early years skills. It is good to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), and the Minister in their places. I thank the Minister for all her hard work and wish her well in that role. Whether in strategy or policy, the focus on children is so important.

The importance of investing in children’s essential skills in the early years cannot be overstated. Success in that has been shown to have an impact on broader society and the economy. Studies conducted by the effective pre-school, primary and secondary education project demonstrated that having a trained early years teacher often leads to better long-term chances for children. I have witnessed that as grandfather to six children, and will later mention their progress.

That evidence has sometimes sadly been neglected, as reflected across the United Kingdom where only one in 10 nurseries has an early years teacher. Children with an early years education were found to go on to gain higher English and maths GCSE results, and were more likely to achieve five or more grades A* to C. The facts and evidence base are clearly there. Children who experienced high-quality pre-school education were better at self-regulation, social behaviour and less inclined to hyperactivity. That is all evidence based—I speak according to the evidence. Children who experienced high-quality pre-school settings were more likely to follow a post-16 academic path. Despite that evidence, more than 80% of parents say they have struggled to access services such as parenting support, health visitors and high-quality early education.

I would like to highlight one issue. My son and daughter-in-law control and restrict screen time on the iPad but, over my time as an elected representative, I have noticed one thing coming back from those involved in nurseries and primary school. This is not a criticism, because people deal with things in their own way, but what happens if the child is busy, hyper or giving a bit of bother? They are handed the iPad. It takes their attention and they are okay for a while, but the amount of time a child is on an iPad must be restricted. I am not sure that every parent understands that. That is about teaching skills, not telling them how to parent. It is about making them aware of the issues.

Some of the nursery staff I spoke to told me of the damage of a child being on an iPad screen for three or four hours a day. That will have a very negative effect on the child. I would like to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that, because that important point is made by nursery school teachers and some parents. Increased screen time for children should be raised as a potential barrier to the development of children’s essential skills.

[Adam Dance]

I totally agree that screen time can be damaging for young people just given a phone or an iPad, but does the hon. Member not agree that screen time can be beneficial if used in the right way to help people with disabilities such as dyslexia?

--- Later in debate ---

[Jim Shannon]

I agree with the hon. Member. I know that from my grandchildren—the wee ones in particular, who are both educationally challenged—though my son and daughter-in-law restrict time. It is important to have the opportunity, but also to control that time so that it does not impact them adversely. The hon. Gentleman is right that it is a tool that can be used for benefit, as well. It is important to put that on the record.

It has been recognised that excessive screen time could limit the vocabulary of children, particularly damaging the ability to speak of those under five. Research found that 98% of two-year-olds watch screens daily. Higher screen time was independently associated with lower vocabulary development: the more the screen time, the less the talking and voice and word development. Children with the highest screen time could say 53% of the 34 test words on average, while those with the lowest screen time could say 65%. It is clear that we need a UK-wide approach to help parents understand why screen time balance is as essential to development as a nutrient-filled diet.

It is vital that outcomes in reading and writing assessments continue to be monitored, in recognition that many children are still underdeveloped in essential skills and may require extra support due to covid educational preventions. I believe that essential skills are also provided by the voluntary sector. I want to mention some of those, such as local churches. We must recognise the volunteers in the Boys’ Brigade and Girls’ Brigade, the Campaigners, the Scouts and so many others who teach skills for badges. Their work with local community groups is so valued and must be highlighted in any debate on essential skills, as a child’s skills are more than academic; they are social and moral as well. So many volunteer organisations sow into children’s lives, and this must be recognised and applauded.

In Northern Ireland, the publication of the 2024-25 end of key stage assessment outcomes highlighted the urgent need for renewed focus on literacy and numeracy. Data showed that 28% of pupils at the end of primary school are not achieving at the expected levels, so there is a real challenge there for us back home, and for the Education Minister to do much better. That is almost three in 10 pupils, to give an idea of the significance. That is of significant concern particularly as the foundational skills and the basics are essential for pupils’ future learning, wellbeing and life opportunity. I will finish with this mantra: every child should be allowed the best start in life, and it is our duty as elected representatives in positions of power—whether MPs here or representatives in the regional Governments in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales—to ensure that future generations are protected. We can do that if we choose to do that. I look forward to what the Minister will say to encourage us all.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Allin-Khan. I welcome today’s constructive and thoughtful debate and the constructive tone of both the hon. Members for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) and for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti). I know we all share a desire to ensure that our children are supported to grow up into well-rounded adults. It is brilliant to see young people in the Gallery listening to the debate.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for securing this debate. He has been such a champion of these issues, and almost on a daily, or at least weekly, basis he stops me to discuss these questions. As he said, I have visited his constituency and seen some of the work that he is leading in practice. As we have heard today, these are massively important topics. The Milburn review has shown the real cost of unemployment for young people and how critical it is to ensure that they have the skills that can support them into the workplace, but also, as we have heard from so many people, support them to be active citizens participating in community life.

I will start where my hon. Friend did in his speech and focus on the importance of children and young people feeling confident to face challenges and shape the world around them. So much change is happening, and we cannot fully imagine the world that young people will go out into. It is therefore critical that they have the core foundations of knowledge as well as a love of learning. We want young people to return to and enjoy learning as their time in the workplace goes on; learning should be core throughout their lives. They must feel that they have the skills to be able to deal with uncertainty, to shape the world and to feel confident. So many young people tell me that that is not how they feel at the moment. That is why the curriculum and assessment review and this debate are so important.

The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East asked whether we have to choose between knowledge and skills and standards and inclusion. For me, they are two sides of the same coin. It is absolutely critical that we support our children to attain academically. We all know that too many young people are being left behind, and we have stark gaps for disadvantaged young people that we need to address. A big part of that is how they are engaged in education. School has to be unmissable, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell said, the joy of learning is critical. It is important that children are engaged and want to come to school to develop their knowledge, whether that is through enrichment or through teaching the core things that they really want to know about, such as financial education.

In this Chamber and the main Chamber, we often talk about inclusion and the importance of supporting children with special educational needs and disabilities to feel a sense of wellbeing and belonging. Too often, they have not felt that, and that has left them feeling disengaged from education. We will pursue both knowledge and skills and inclusion and high standards for our young people.

We have heard throughout the debate about the curriculum and assessment review and the work that we commissioned Professor Becky Francis to do with an incredibly expert panel. It did a really careful and thoughtful piece of work for the Government, setting out the things that it felt needed to change to support children to be able to go out confidently into the modern world. Lots of the themes that came up in this debate—media literacy, digital literacy, the importance of citizenship, oracy—came out in the review, and we have committed to embedding them. In terms of next steps, a huge amount of work is going on to draft programmes of study and to test them with a range of different partners. We have committed to giving schools four terms to prepare for implementing the new curriculum.

The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East asked about space in the curriculum. What was really powerful about the work that Dr Becky Francis led was that it gave careful thought to the sequencing of the curriculum, how things fit together and how duplication can be prevented. We are developing a digital curriculum for the first time, so it will be much easier for teachers to make links between different subjects.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell also raised enrichment and its importance in making school unmissable and making young people excited about coming to school. I travel around the country talking to young people, and they often say that it is the thing they really look forward to and that it helps them to feel part of the wider school community. We will publish an enrichment framework with a focus on developing wider life skills relating to arts and culture, civic engagement, nature, outdoor adventure, and sport and physical activities.

Many Members made really important points about making sure that the enrichment offer is open to students who feel further away from those opportunities, and we are working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to build up the enrichment offer in 400 schools in the most disadvantaged areas. We are investing £22.5 million from the dormant assets fund to make that a reality, as well as working with a whole range of partners to ensure that the enrichment framework for all schools is a really powerful tool.

Another point raised by a number of Members was about citizenship and political education. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) made a really powerful speech about how important that is for votes at 16, but also for our democratic institutions and our ability to disagree agreeably and have these political debates. When we have so much misinformation and division, embedding that in our education system is incredibly important. We have committed to citizenship being statutory in key stages 1 and 2, and to strengthening and modernising citizenship across the curriculum, looking at many of the themes that we have talked about, including media literacy.

The hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) talked about digital literacy and AI and about making sure that those are core skills. We are looking to embed key areas such as digital and media literacy across the curriculum, because every single subject will have an element of these AI and digital skills, but we are also refreshing the computing GCSE so that particular content is focused on that.

On media literacy, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Dr Pinkerton) mentioned misinformation. That is another really important theme that will sit in citizenship but also in other subjects. In history, for instance, people will really think about sources and how to decipher information, and in English people will look at emotive language. Those are areas where we can look at these core themes embedded into the wider curriculum.

My hon. Friend the Member for Filton and Bradley Stoke (Claire Hazelgrove) and others mentioned financial literacy, which comes up more than anything else from young people as being a skill that they really want to have and learn about. We are working across the maths curriculum and the wider piece to look at how we really embed financial literacy, and we will be doing a number of test and learns around implementation and working with teachers.

Turning to the different contributions on early years childcare, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle). She made an incredibly powerful speech about what a lifeline childcare is for families, and I completely agree. I see that all the time as a constituency MP, and particularly how essential it is for mums, who often end up doing so much of that childcare. My hon. Friend mentioned the importance of the 30 hours of free childcare; that has made a difference for people taking up the full entitlement, which we think has saved them an average of £8,000. She also mentioned how fees and different practices can pull away at some of that really important cost of living support. The Secretary of State for Education has written to the Competition and Markets Authority to request a review of the early years childcare market, which is to look precisely at many of the issues that my hon. Friend mentioned. It is worth having a look at that letter, and it is a really important issue to pursue.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the importance of early years, and my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) spoke powerfully about the long-term impact of delayed language development for children. Sadly, since the pandemic we have seen many more children coming into school with delayed language. We know the long-term impact on children, so that has been a key focus for the Government in developing Best Start hubs, which will give that wraparound support to children, but also introducing new programmes such as the early language support programme, which brings NHS services to schools to identify needs earlier, and the Nuffield early learning intervention programme, which puts support in for reception children. I would be interested to hear more about what is going on in Cornwall and some of the challenges that my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth mentioned, and to discuss that further. This is also a key part of our thinking around the SEND reforms, putting more investment, earlier, into speech and language support and the new Experts at Hand service, which will include speech and language therapists.

[Jim Shannon]

First, may I welcome the Minister’s comments on all the issues that have been raised, particularly mine on screen time? Sometimes we must engage with parents in a way that shows that we understand that children should be given a bit of time on their iPads but that that time should be restricted, too. Does the Minister have any thoughts on that?

[Georgia Gould]

I thank the hon. Member for raising that issue. We have developed guidance for parents to support them with screen time in early years. As a parent of a two-and-a-half-year-old, I know how confusing it can be. It is not something that I was spoken to about when I had my son. It is important we have guidance that is not judgmental but gives parents the best advice. We have put that out now. A lot of expertise has gone into developing it and I have had really positive feedback. Certainly, I have found it very helpful personally in shaping those important decisions. It is also important that through our Best Start hubs we are able to have that conversation and support for children, not just about not being on screens, but about what engagement looks like: what are the activities, how does one encourage a child to speak, and as they get older what are the enrichment activities that they can engage in after the school day?

The hon. Member for Yeovil is always a passionate advocate of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, and I welcome him mentioning that as part of these wider issues. On the questions on identifying needs, he will know that we are developing national inclusion standards which include research into identification around the needs we have set out in our SEND consultation document. That work is ongoing and it will form part of national inclusion standards. We are working on appointing the panel of independent experts at the moment. It is critical that we get that right, and have that early identification of needs, whether on speech and language or others.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the importance of support for young people who are constantly having to re-sit English and maths. He will know we have been consulting on a new level 1 English and maths qualification, which is precisely designed to support children and young people to consolidate their knowledge and be a gateway qualification to deal with exactly that problem, which is one I have heard time and time again.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 27th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

I would be incredibly concerned if that were the case. Would the Minister like to intervene and indicate whether any PPS sitting behind her was doing that? [Interruption.] She says no. Well, that is good to know. It would be incredibly concerning if that were the case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I think every one of us would welcome the Government’s movement on mobile phones. In Northern Ireland, we had a pilot scheme to start with. We all welcome this measure on the issue of social media. It is for England and Wales, I understand, but will the shadow Secretary of State—I wanted to ask this in an intervention on the Secretary of State—consider passing on the details of the legislative change, so that we in Northern Ireland can take advantage of some of the good things coming forward? We should share those good things.

[Laura Trott]

As ever, the hon. Gentleman is correct. I am sure that will be picked up by the Minister in her closing remarks.

Young Adult Carers: Education and Training

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for requesting time to debate this vital topic. I do not think he ever makes a contribution without mentioning Harlow, and well done to him. Indeed, I have probably never made a contribution without mentioning Strangford, but that is by the way. It is important to remember who we represent and speak on behalf of in this Chamber.

I commend the hon. Gentleman on his energy, his interest in this subject and his incredible speech, which was detailed and full of information we all need to consider. I am pleased to see the Minister in his place. In this debate, I suspect every one of us will be of the same mind, including the Minister. At the end of my speech, I will have a number of asks of him.

The situation in Northern Ireland is no different from that in Harlow or anywhere else. Members from various constituencies are here to talk about a group of people who are the backbone of our society, but who often remain invisible. Their endeavours are perhaps not seen or talked about, but that is not why they do these things: as the hon. Gentleman said, they do it for the love of their siblings, their mum or their dad—whoever it is they are caring for. There are literally thousands of young people in Northern Ireland who, instead of focusing on their exams or their social lives, provide vital care for their loved ones. This debate is a chance to tell their story.

Over my years as an elected representative, I have had many opportunities to speak to young carers and meet their families, and to understand their situations. Early in my time as an Assembly Member, I spoke to a young boy who looked after his mum in the West Winds estate in Newtownards. I remember the commitment that that young boy had to his mum and also to his siblings. His mum was a single parent, and she was housebound and, if I recall rightly, wheelchair-bound as well. That young boy gave great physical help to his mum, including by getting his siblings to school in the morning. Those are things the mum would have done, but he did them because she could not. It is very important that we remember that. The example of that young fella from way, way back always sticks in my mind.

The scale of responsibility is staggering. According to the latest figures, there are some 17,500 child and young adult carers in Northern Ireland, representing roughly 8% of all unpaid carers in our region back home. The 2021 census highlights a very stark age profile: we have at least 2,500 carers under the age of 15. I know that this is not how they see it, but those young shoulders have to support a physical and an emotional burden. When they move into early adulthood, those numbers grow: over 5% of our 15 to 19-year-olds and more than 8% of our 20 to 24-year-olds are providing regular unpaid care.

It is not just about the numbers. Although the stats are important to give the mathematical background, they do not fully explain the issues—it is about the intensity of that care. In Northern Ireland, more than 10% of young carers under 18 are providing over 50 hours of care every single week. I think of the intensity of that care and that young boy who I knew some years ago and whom I referred to—he is now an adult; he has married and moved on in his life. There is an intensity of care if someone is wheelchair bound, bed bound or unable to do things physically, and the duty falls on the shoulders of the daughter or the son to sometimes do things that are quite intimate, which is also a problem. Those 50 hours of care every single week are more than a full-time job, balanced on the shoulders of someone still in school or starting their career.

That commitment comes at an incredibly high price. Research shows that young carers are 1.5 times more likely to experience educational difficulties than their peers because the pressures on their young shoulders are enormous. They are also facing a poverty penalty—a point on which the Minister could respond. People will ask what that means; it means that roughly one in four unpaid carers in Northern Ireland live in poverty. For many of our young carers, it also means missing out on school trips and socialising with their friends, because when they get home from school they are looking after their mum or the other children and making their tea, looking after their health needs and giving them their medications.

Young carers are even missing out on basic essentials such as heating and food. One guy told me that they are often

“one white good appliance away from destitution.”

In other words, they are dependent on everything working in the house—the microwave, the toaster, the kettle and the lift up the stairs or into the shower—for those things that are otherwise impossible for someone who is severely disabled to do themselves. We know the value of this work. Unpaid carers save the Northern Ireland Executive, my Assembly, an estimated £5.8 billion every year. That is what those 17,500 young carers do every year, yet the support they receive does not ever reflect that contribution.

It is time for our Government to move beyond Trojan work and—I say this with great respect—patronising praise. My first ask of the Minister is that there must be financial recognition through an uplift to the carer’s allowance. I know that these things will not necessarily be within the Minister’s remit, but I would appreciate him pushing for them following the debate today, ever mindful of what is happening.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I apologise for my tardiness in arriving, Mrs Harris. The hon. Gentleman is making a valid point. Does he agree that as well as challenging the Government about what they can do for young carers, we must challenge our colleges and education establishments to ensure that they are environments where young carers can thrive?

I would like to highlight the excellent work of Michelle Dowse at Heart of Worcestershire college in my constituency. The college offers one-to-one support, transitional visits and external support so that, when young carers make it into higher or further education, they have support right there on those campuses to make sure that they can thrive. We have to challenge the Government but also our education establishments.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Member; that was going to be my fourth request, by the way, so well done.

[Chris Bloore]

Sorry.

[Jim Shannon]

It means we are thinking alike about what we need to do, and that is important. We have collectively understood the issues.

My second ask is for what I would refer to as a carer’s essentials payment to cover the unavoidable extra costs of caring. There are things that creep up—I was going to say that we all know how the household works, but my wife knows more about it than I do—and there are exceptional cost issues for a carer looking after someone.

My third ask is for the implementation of a new carers strategy. Again, if we understand the issue better, hopefully we can respond better. That should protect young carers under equality law because, with respect, sometimes the law falls short of the high standards we set and expect for our young carers.

My fourth ask is that, as the hon. Member mentioned in his intervention—I thank him for that—there should be educational grants and a systematic approach to identifying carers in every school and college so that they never have to choose between their education and their family. The hon. Members present, the Minister and the Government all want to ensure that our young carers reach their goal or their vision of what they want in employment.

I think about that young boy I referred to, who was my first introduction to a young carer many years ago when I was in the Assembly. He achieved his goals eventually; he was a strong young fella supported by his family. It is about the colleges, schools, teachers and education system wrapping their arms around young people and saying, “We know you’re under pressure at home, but can we help with some teaching there? If you’re not able to make it to school one day, we’ll understand and help you catch up.” It is about giving them full support. The hon. Member for Harlow made that specific point at the beginning.

As the hon. Member said, we could go on and on because there are so many examples, but the bottom line is this: young carers are propping up a health system that would collapse without them, and we need to remember that. We recognise their good work, but we should also be there to support them. They deserve to have a childhood, an education and a future that is not defined by financial strain. I say this with great respect: let us stop closing our eyes to their struggle. It is time to see them, value them and, most importantly, support them.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Harris. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this debate, the second Westminster Hall debate he has instigated. He continues to be a fantastic champion for these young people and does a brilliant job of putting the spotlight firmly where it should be in this place. I also recognise the contribution from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who did a wonderful job of explaining the reality of what it means to be a young adult carer or young carer using personal stories, which are often what move parliamentarians the most.

I fully recognise the difficulties that young carers and young adult carers face. They make an often overlooked and misunderstood contribution supporting family members and friends. The sacrifices they make at such a young age can be immense. Earlier this year, my noble Friend the Minister for Skills met a group of young carers at the launch of the report on the barriers to education for young adult carers by the APPG led by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), mentioned the role of the Minister for School Standards, who also has a lead responsibility for this. I reassure Members that the issue cuts across a number of portfolios in the Department and is an interest and focus for all of us.

The APPG chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow is driving important work to support young carers across the country. The stories of young carers, including those I have heard as a Member of Parliament, are inspiring and bring to life the challenges they face when caring for loved ones, supporting themselves and their family financially, and accessing education and training, which is the focus of this debate.

This Government offer a wide range of high-quality education and training opportunities for young people so that they can get on in life and get the skills they need for a chosen career. The Government’s mission is about breaking down barriers to opportunity, which applies particularly to groups such as young carers. However, we know that group often faces more difficulties and challenges in accessing such opportunities than their peers. That is why the Government are actively working to ensure that changes under way across education and social care, which apply to many groups of young people, deliberately improve outcomes for young carers specifically—be that through better inclusion in education or a focus on better whole-family support and family help through changes to the children’s social care system.

We are making progress. There were a number of references to the importance of data. We are shining a light on the educational disadvantage faced by young carers by publishing, for the first time, attainment data at both key stage 2 and key stage 4 last autumn. I recognise that that piece of work has carried over between Governments; it is a good example of important work continuing regardless of party stance and despite the colour of the Government at any given moment. That evidence is driving change. For example, the new Ofsted education inspection framework introduced last November will put a direct focus on the needs of young carers. As Ofsted can be important as a motivating force for decisions by schools, although it has limitations at times, that also means that by putting it firmly in the framework, school leaders are attending to it in the way that is needed.

The Minister for Care chairs a regular cross-Government meeting with Ministers from the Department for Work and Pensions, the Department for Business and Trade and the Department for Education to consider how best to provide unpaid carers of all ages with the recognition and support they deserve. As has been mentioned, we are preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers, which will be published later this year. It will include action specifically to strengthen further support for young adult carers. We are also committed to providing bursaries for further education students aged 16 to 19 so that young carers can seek support for essential costs, such as books, equipment and travel, to help them stay in education. For those going into higher education, we are providing adult dependants’ grants for carers, and new maintenance grants will be available for students from low-income households.

Hon. Members have mentioned the Milburn review. I have had the chance to speak to Alan Milburn specifically about concerns to do with NEET rates for care-experienced young people. When I next have the opportunity to speak to him about his work, I will raise the importance of young carers, too.

A number of hon. Members have mentioned carer’s allowance. I recognise the issues around the 21-hour rule, which I appreciate can be a source of genuine frustration for young carers and their families. It is a long-standing principle that the benefits system does not normally support full-time students; rather, they are supported by the educational maintenance system. Part-time students can receive carer’s allowance if they meet the entitlement conditions.

I recognise the issues for a number of students finishing school and in programmes of study that are more than 21 hours. That means that many young carers who are also full-time FE students cannot claim carer’s allowance as a result of the 21-hour rule. The Minister for Social Security and Disability has taken a strong interest in this issue, including by meeting with Carers Trust, Carers UK, and the Learning and Work Institute to discuss it, and I am happy to follow up with him after this debate. How we can best identify and support young carers to combine study with their caring responsibilities where they can, including taking account of changes in the education system, will be one of our priorities going forward for this group of young people.

[Jim Shannon]

Not to interfere with the flow of the Minister’s reply—he is saying positive stuff, and I thank him for that—but perhaps the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) should be at that meeting and the follow-up, if that would be agreeable. The hon. Member could feed back to us, as participants in this debate, on how it went, if that is okay with the Minister.

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow will do a much better job of convincing people than anyone else in this room, so I will gladly make sure that he is the focus of attention in that conversation. It is very much my intention to follow up with the Minister for Social Security and Disability and ensure that a conversation takes place.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important matter. He has his London marathon bib sat next to him, and mine has just been delivered—on a whole range of fronts, he is raising attention and money for good causes, including this weekend. For this, for his many years of campaigning, and for his work as a teacher, we all thank him.

Young carers and young adult carers often put the needs of others before their own. They make an enormous contribution to the wellbeing of their families, their neighbourhoods, their communities and the country. They deserve to be championed, and to be assured that we will support them in return for their actions. However, the system needs to improve to meet the developing needs of children and young carers. They must be at the heart of our opportunity mission. I look forward to helping to progress some of these issues in the months and years ahead.

Oral Answers to Questions

Jim Shannon Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to Simone, who is sitting in the Gallery. She is a wonderful Cumbrian, and a fantastic example of the excellence of school leaders and headteachers throughout the country. She has stewarded the school through a tumultuous few years, and with our Government support we will ensure that the new school setting is there for children who will need it in the future. Renewing our school estate is a massive challenge for the country: it is not just about building new schools, but about getting ahead of the curve so that we can modernise and retrofit existing school buildings that would otherwise have needed rebuilding altogether in 10 or 20 years’ time.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

RAAC—reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete—has been an huge issue here in Britain, but we have some examples back home in Northern Ireland as well. It is important that we share the way in which we address these problems. The Minister is always helpful, and I thank him for that. Will he contact the Education Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that he and the Government can share what they have learnt here with us in Northern Ireland, so that we can address the issue in a similar way?

[Josh MacAlister]

The RAAC crisis here in England highlighted wider issues with the legacy of the school estate that England is now having to reckon with. I believe that we are now on top of that issue, and the Government are committed to stripping RAAC out of all schools in the years to come and ensuring that we have the school estate that we need. We have learnt a huge amount through that process, and I should be very glad to connect the hon. Member with relevant colleagues in the Department for Education and with Ministers in the Northern Irish Government.