Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 14th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks regarding the Prime Minister’s father.

Despite the Secretary of State previously calling the student loan system “egregious” and saying that reviewing that system was a top priority—she has just said that it is at the top of her in-tray—the Treasury’s response to the Treasury Committee rejected a series of recommendations that would have alleviated some of the burden on those on plan 2 student loans. What exactly is the Secretary of State’s plan to fix the student loan system?

[Lucy Powell]

As I have said, I am determined that we get these things right. Two things can be true at the same time: I feel the system is unfair and in need of reform, but we also have to put that in the context of the wider public finances and all the pressures and priorities that fall on them. However, it is slightly audacious of the Conservatives to raise this issue, given that they introduced the plan 2 system and froze the threshold four times when they were in government—they are not independent campaigners on this issue today. It now falls in my lap to deal with this issue, and I will do so, unlike the Conservative party.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Six months ago, the previous Secretary of State revealed the Government’s plan to carry out SEND reforms. Since then, we have had a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State, who last week stated her intention to carry out those reforms. Yet there has been little detail on how the Government will fill the £2 billion black hole in the SEND budget, despite fiscal pressures on the Government continuing to increase, as we all know. When will the legislation come to the House, and where will the money come from? Parents, teachers and children deserve answers.

[Georgia Gould]

We have been absolutely clear about the investment we are making in the SEND system, with £4 billion for early intervention and £3.7 billion in capital investment—funding that did not come when the previous Government were in power. We welcome the opportunity to work cross-party and for Members to work alongside Ministers, as this is too important an issue not to bring all the ideas of the House together. I am waiting to hear what Opposition Members think about SEND reforms; I look forward to their clarifying that.

Pica Eating Disorder: SEND

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Wednesday 9th September 2026 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I thank the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Margaret Mullane) for her eloquent and important speech, for securing the debate and for her work campaigning for a better SEN system for her constituents. I commend her for bringing as many local voices into the debate as possible, because if we are to deliver the system that children, young people and parents deserve, we must ensure that we listen to a wide range of voices.

I was pleased to be reappointed as shadow Minister, not least because I can continue to stand up for SEND families, but I was also pleased that the Minister was reappointed to her position—I genuinely mean that. I will work with her on any reforms around pica, given the nature of the condition, and around SEND reforms more broadly.

As has been said, pica is a condition where people, usually children, routinely ingest non-edible items. It is often associated with autism spectrum disorder, and reportedly affects between 9% and 25% of children with developmental difficulties, including autism. Although children with pica may eat non-food items that are relatively harmless, others ingest much more potentially harmful substances, including soil, sand, hair, toothpaste and faeces. Non-food items can, on occasion, pass through the child harmlessly, but there are significant health risks—risks that no parent is ever willing to take. The items can cause blockages in the gut, infections, choking and dental problems, to name but a few of the risks.

Parents of children with pica can understandably find their behaviour distressing, and often have to go to great lengths to prevent harm to their children—locking cupboards, removing potentially harmful items, and auditing their home and garden to ensure that the child can play safely. That will inevitably lead to a sense of isolation for not only the parents but their child. Parents may not know what kind of support is available or be unsure about how to support their child, and it is often said that children with pica feel marginalised and excluded at school and in social settings.

There are indications that, with the right support and treatment, many children overcome pica behaviours, but not all do. That is why training is incredibly important. Getting to the root of the underlying cause is important, and in some cases can be transformative. For some children, pica behaviours may arise from certain nutritional deficiencies, so identifying those factors can be important. For many, it is not always clear what has happened. That is why parents and teachers need more awareness and clear, signposted support.

Parents and carers can benefit from a range of online resources, including the National Pica Advisory Service, which was established in 2023. I pay tribute to the work of the organisations, including those in attendance, that provide essential resources and a support network to parents and families, helping them to navigate their child’s condition. I understand that the National Pica Advisory Service is aiming to expand its services so that there is a support hub in every NHS trust. What discussions has the Minister had, or will she be having, to help to improve awareness and support for families affected by pica?

It is important to get the right support not only at home but at school. Successfully implemented support plans can help to safeguard children and support them to move away from pica behaviours. That is why teacher training is incredibly important. What conversations has the Minister had with officials about the practical steps that the Government can take, as they do their SEND reforms, to enhance teacher training in this space?

Teachers who are trained in pica are not only better equipped to put in place safety interventions in the classroom, but better placed to identify pica behaviours in the first instance. Teachers and school staff are uniquely positioned to notice unusual eating behaviours during school meal times, missing non-food items in the classroom, or physical symptoms such as choking and stomach pains.

Given the significant safety risks involved in this condition, including choking and poisoning, it is right that we look at the current training offer for educational staff. There are a number of training certificates that teachers and early years practitioners can obtain, but their discretionary nature means that there are bound to be discrepancies and regional variations, which is particularly important at a time when our schools are being put under significant financial pressure. What is the Minister’s assessment of the adequacy of pica training for teachers, teaching assistants, special educational needs co-ordinators and school safeguarding leads?

Pica can lead to incredibly heartbreaking situations, such as the case of 19-year-old Owen Garnett in a school in Stratford-upon-Avon, which the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham mentioned. Owen’s tragic death came days after a near-identical miss that should have provided a wake-up call to staff and that the Health and Safety Executive inspector said should have triggered remedial action. Although the school was fined, at the heart of the tragedy was a lack of specialised training for staff and a failure to reassess and reinforce preventive strategies. Has the Minister taken a look at that incident? What lessons will she learn from that as the Department undertakes its reforms?

Although I understand that personalised treatment is often at the heart of successfully helping children with this condition, what consideration has been given to the potential merits of nationally recognised training? What discussions has had the Minister had with the Department of Health concerning pica, especially with the SEND reforms? I have asked about that before, as it is important that the gap between health and education is overcome.

As the Government implement their plans for SEND mainstreaming, gaps in the quality of pica awareness training are bound to become more apparent and pressing. How will the Government ensure that pica is taken into account when SEND is brought into mainstream settings? How is the Minister’s Department working to support a joined-up approach between parents, health professionals, schools and specialist organisations to ensure that pupils with pica have an updated risk management strategy that evolves with them? Will training on pica form part of the Government’s support for mainstream teachers as their schools take in more SEND pupils? How will funding for pupils diagnosed with pica follow them throughout their education journey? Will that be adaptable in those SEND reforms?

To conclude, today’s important debate has highlighted the need to raise awareness and improve support for families affected by pica. When talking to people before the debate, I had to explain what pica was and how it affects so many different aspects of society—in this case, children with special educational needs. There is a real need to reassess the training and safeguarding procedures currently developed within schools. Our focus must be on keeping children safe and ensuring that they have the best chance to thrive both within the current system and as the Government implement their mainstreaming reforms. Parents, carers, pupils and teachers will be listening, and they deserve clear answers. I hope the Minister can provide some.

Antisemitism: University Campuses

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Tuesday 30th June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John, and to respond to this moving and, sadly, harrowing debate. I am the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group against antisemitism. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds South West and Morley (Mark Sewards) for securing this incredibly important debate, for his dedication to this cause and for his moving speech. I also acknowledge the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey)—my good friend—who set out passionately why this debate is so important and why we are all here, even though we wish that we did not have to be.

Jewish students face some of the worst antisemitic abuse in society and in universities. According to the Community Security Trust, there are over 9,000 Jewish students at universities across the UK, and they have faced a terrifying rise in antisemitism. In 2022-23, there were 53 university-related antisemitic incidents; that number rose to 272 in 2023-24—the highest total recorded for a single academic year.

The Union of Jewish Students has published a harrowing report highlighting the fact that antisemitism is now effectively normalised on our campuses. It found that one in four students have seen behaviour that explicitly targets Jewish students for their religion. More broadly, the report demonstrates that universities are failing to confront the open glorification of terrorism. Nearly half of students have heard chants glorifying proscribed terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. The research also shows that

“student groups have explicitly called for violence against Jews”,

even justifying the sickening terrorist attack in Bondi Beach last year.

As well as the terrible glorification of violence, and the sense that antisemitism is normal because it always goes unpunished, antisemitic protests also disrupt students’ learning. Students who have witnessed Israel-Palestine protests at university feel that it still goes unaddressed, and four in 10 students have seen Jewish students being harassed.

Britain has a proud history of tolerance but we cannot be complacent in our fight to protect our fundamental values of decency, tolerance and support for each other. I thank hon. Members from all parties for speaking up in solidarity with British Jewish students. However, those freedoms, which are fundamental to our democracy, and proud traditions are under ever-increasing threat. Society is becoming more fractured, driven by divisive rhetoric online and offline that drives populism and pushes more people towards the extreme. The fact that our society is more divided is having a real impact on the everyday lives of the hundreds of thousands of Jewish people in the UK. The Community Security Trust estimates that there were over 300 antisemitic incidents per month in 2025—that is double the number in the year preceding the war in the middle east.

Student testimony collected by organisations such as the CST, the Union of Jewish Students and the Pinsker Centre demonstrates the hostile environment faced by Jewish students on campus since October 2023. Although some have already been shared, let me share a few of those comments. In a focus group run by the Pinsker Centre, one student said:

“Some people suddenly radicalised…after October 7th and now don’t speak to me. They have blocked me on social media, ignore me or have explicitly told me that I am complicit in genocide.”

In summer 2024, a Jewish society committee member in Bristol approached a pro-Palestinian encampment to have a civil conversation. That night he was recognised, physically attacked and assaulted in a nightclub by individuals who had heard him earlier in the day. His shirt was ripped and his back was covered in scratches and cuts. Too often, we hear about Jewish students being chased, attacked and abused because they are wearing kippot, or skullcaps.

As we heard earlier, a Royal Holloway student—Evaldas, whom I spoke to earlier today—received calls in which the caller read out his home address, warned that they were coming to get him and made an explicit threat to blow up the Jewish society. He told me that he got those calls 10 times a day, and that, at one point, because his address was publicised, bloody period pads were put outside his door. As we heard earlier, a professor at Bangor University physically attacked a student while calling him a “baby killer”—a medieval antisemitic trope.

I spoke today to Evelyn from University College London, who told me that, at an antisemitism stall, she was approached and called an “effing white supremacist bitch”. I paraphrase, because the abuse went on and on. She had a recording, but last week she found out that no action was being taken. I hear repeatedly about how many members of the faculty at UCL are members of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement, which is clearly helping to exacerbate the situation.

I spoke to Ben from the London School of Economics, who told me about the launch of a book titled “Understanding Hamas: And Why That Matters”. There was a protest outside the book launch, and a counter-protest to the protest. He eloquently said to me, “If you are counter-protesting at a protest against a proscribed terrorist organisation, what does that make you?” As we heard earlier, a King’s College London student had to write a 1,000-word essay explaining why it was wrong to display an Israeli flag on campus. Imagine if that had been a Palestinian flag. Would the result have been the same? The list goes on and on.

Something has gone horribly wrong. It is clear that a permissive culture of antisemitism and abuse has been allowed to fester. Antisemitism has been covered up as activism and protest. Hate is being legitimised, and British Jews are left isolated and living in fear. Our Jewish communities need us. In this moment, we cannot falter.

I am pleased that the Government have announced some new steps to ensure that universities publish the scale of antisemitism on campuses—that is a welcome step forward—but we need further clarity on what exactly the Government will do if universities continue to fail to tackle antisemitism, examples of which I have listed. Saying, “We will set out next steps in due course” is not enough. Our Jewish community need to know today what the Government intend to do to clamp down on this. Will the Minister address that?

The shadow Secretary of State for Education, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), has said that universities that fail to clamp down on antisemitism should have their funding stripped to ensure that there are real and serious consequences for that failure. I therefore ask the Minister to identify the steps that the Government will take to punish universities that have allowed antisemitism to become normalised.

Too many students tell me that the complaints system is insufficient. The Office of the Independent Adjudicator for Higher Education, which they have to go through, has no meaningful sanctions. We need a complaints system that works for students. I encourage the Minister to look into that. My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Jack Rankin) wrote to him about it, but he is yet to receive a reply. Will the Minister address that?

Is the Minister working with the Office for Students to better tackle antisemitism? I recognise that an independent investigation into antisemitism in schools, colleges and universities is due by the autumn, but will the Minister update the House on specific timetabling, as other Members have asked him to? The evidence we have heard today shows how important it is to tackle antisemitism urgently.

The importance of this debate cannot be overstated. It goes above party politics, so I offer my sincerest support to the Minister in helping the Government to tackle extremism of all kinds in our universities. I say to British Jews: His Majesty’s Opposition will never shy away from standing up for you, and we will do so without fear, knowing that we are standing up for what is right. There are too many platitudes, too many never agains, and yet nothing changes.

When I meet British Jews, as I did yesterday, I too often see fear and anxiety in their eyes. I too often hear that they are not sure if this country—their country—is safe for them. To hear about raging antisemitism on our university campuses, which should be a safe place for all, is a stain on our society. A future Conservative Government would ensure that universities do not allow antisemitism to fester. Those that do not comply would face the toughest of sanctions. Hate preachers who come to this country to spread hate would, under the Conservatives, be deported. Where the law is broken, we would empower the police to enforce it to its fullest extent.

To British Jews, let me say this: your fight is our fight, you are of us and we are of you, and we will not fail you in this endeavour.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Just a few months ago, the TES reported that the Government had frozen the high needs funding block, which special schools rely on. Headteachers are warning that the Government’s decision means that children will not get the support they need due to a lack of funding. The Minister may well point to the Experts at Hand service, but it is not the same and does not come close to meeting what each school will have lost. How can she justify freezing the high needs funding block when the demand for special schools is rising, the demand for education, health and care plans is rising, and the Government’s reforms are years away?

[Georgia Gould]

When we came into Government, we made a significant increase to the high needs block, precisely because we knew that investment in special educational needs and disabilities was desperately needed. Hon. Members across the House will know that the current system has been failing for a long time. We are acting to reform the system, but we are also investing £4 billion into early intervention, £3.7 billion into capital places and £200 million into teacher training and supporting local authorities with their deficits. This is something we are taking absolutely seriously. It is at the heart of our agenda, and we are acting where the previous Government failed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I say to the Minister that the Government cannot do more if they are making a 22% cut to funding. The whole nation is watching the world cup and millions of children have recently competed in their annual sports days, yet the Government snuck out this massive cut to PE and sport funding during the recent May half-term. The Secretary of State said that this is a misunderstanding, but it is not; it is a 22% cut that will have serious consequences for millions of children and it will hit the disadvantaged the hardest. Senior headteachers describe it as

“a funding cut dressed up as an initiative to boost PE and sport in schools”.

It is hastily rolled out and will hurt the poorest children, so why are the Government doing it?

Children: Development of Essential Skills

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd June 2026 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Dr Allin-Khan, and may there be many more. I thank the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) for opening the debate, and for his thoughtful contributions that we have heard throughout. I know that he is a long-standing champion of this issue, for which he made his case, and I am sure we will hear more from him. I also thank all Members across the House who made contributions.

In particular, I want to single out the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Kirith Entwistle), who I thought made a really valid contribution. Having just welcomed my third child, and having seen the sacrifice that mums make, I can attest to the fact that she made some very valid points, and she will certainly get a lot of sympathy from me. My good friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about screen time. With three children under five, I can tell him that the battle of the screen time has already begun; I know the anguish that parents face, so I have a huge amount of sympathy.

While I am always careful not to talk about silver bullets in politics, I believe that education is a silver bullet that can transform a child’s life and their chances. School is an essential part of a young person’s development, equipping them with the skills they need to succeed in life. The academic lessons we learn in the classroom prepare us for the world of work, and the social lessons we learn in school teach us so much that will be needed later in life.

The official Opposition are very clear that our children deserve a first-class education, and I am proud that the previous Conservative Government delivered a world-class curriculum to facilitate that. Under previous Conservative Governments, England became one of the top performing countries in education; children in England were named the best in the west for reading, and we were ranked the best at maths in the western world in 2023, according to international standards. At the heart of those results was the previous Government’s rigorous curriculum, which raised standards and helped pupils soar up the international league tables.

This debate has centred on some of the softer but equally important skills that a good education can instil in a young person. While I believe that we cannot underplay the importance of academic rigour, this debate plays a vital role in getting our young people ready for life—or the school of life, shall we say. There is no doubt that so much more needs to be done to ensure that our young people are equipped with the right essential skills.

I would like to go back a few years. I believe that the pandemic played a huge role in some of the outcomes that our young people are facing. Many of them spent time away from home and outside the classroom, which really impacted on skills. With that in mind, I invite the Minister to comment on whether the Government should be working to fill those gaps and ensure that those people are supported into adulthood.

The Opposition are clear that a rigorous curriculum that demands high standards is vital to developing critical skills, which is important in areas such as maths and literacy, and the previous Conservative Government are really proud of our legacy of driving up standards. However, I am concerned about some of the changes in the curriculum review. While I agree with many of its principles, I worry that if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority.

I want to talk about the practical implementation of the curriculum to see whether the Minister can shed some light on it. We all want to see our children equipped with the skills that are needed in life. The hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel) talked about getting our children ready for the digital age, especially with the onset of AI and the waves of disinformation we are seeing online. As a former tech Minister, I share those concerns.

I invite the Minister to discuss what she thinks the new curriculum will do to ensure that our children are ready for the advent of AI, as it is already upon us. Does she worry that we risk diluting the core education that I mentioned, which underpins our academic success and those high standards? What will be sacrificed to deliver some of that extra work? This will also be incredibly important because, as has been mentioned, the Government have decided to push down the voting age to 16. If millions of young people are enfranchised in that way, how will the Minister be confident that they will have the skills to engage in our democracy? How will they be encouraged to critically analyse the information they are given?

In addition, I would like clarity from the Government on the time being taken away from core education. How will they ensure that time is given to the new aspects of the curriculum review to ensure that high standards are achieved? When the Government have been challenged previously by Opposition Members, they have not been forthcoming on that issue. Parents and students are anxious about how the reforms will change their education in the long term, so I invite the Minister to give a bit more clarity, specifically on the citizenship curriculum. As for teaching, what training will teachers require to be ready for those changes?

On financial literacy and education, we can all recognise the benefits of ensuring that young people enter adulthood knowing how to manage their money. In 2023, the “Building Beyond Barriers” report by the all-party group on financial education for young people found that more than half of teachers did not know that financial education was already part of the curriculum. As the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), made clear in a report last week, the importance of financial education cannot be overstated. That report found that

“Four in ten people in the UK have poor financial literacy”,

which is holding back our economy.

The APPG’s report also found that one of the barriers to delivering financial education was a feeling that there is simply not enough time in the school year to deliver those lessons—a similar argument to the one I just made about citizenship lessons. So I ask the Minister: how will they be implemented? Other Members asked about the standards that will be expected. What assessments will be in place to make sure that the quality of the education is of the highest level?

Focusing on core skills does make sense in this regard because good maths is a gateway to lifelong financial stability. That is not just my opinion; the programme for international student assessment found a strong correlation between performance in financial literacy and performance in mathematics. I have no doubt that our hard-working teachers are keen to play their part in delivering the skills education that we have discussed today in an appropriate way in the classroom. But a key part of that is innovation, and the Government’s compulsory curriculum risks inhibiting that innovation from teachers. The Government’s curriculum review praised innovation in teaching and made clear the benefits of flexibility for teachers, but I worry that the opposite will happen in practice.

Lastly, in my regular meetings with stakeholders—both in education and industry— and when I have spoken to students, I hear time and again about the importance of better career support in schools. Understanding the world of work and what steps are needed to get to where a person wants to be in later life are essential. Young people are seeing profound and substantial changes in the world of work, none more so than the impact of AI on professional careers, such as accountancy and law. With that in mind, it is more important than ever that young people are equipped with the right skills to navigate a changing world of employment and the economy at large. I invite the Minister to elaborate on the work that she will do with the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that young people get the quality career advice that they need.

Children deserve a world-class curriculum that sets them up for the best possible chance in life. I support a knowledge-rich curriculum and will continue to urge the Government to answer some of the constructive questions that the Opposition have put forward. We all want to ensure that our young people have the best chances in life and also have the skills to live their lives and thrive.

Young Adult Carers: Education and Training

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Thursday 23rd April 2026 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this important debate. He is proving to be a formidable parliamentarian and—I can say this as a friend—a decent human being, all in all.

I also pay tribute to the young carers across our country. There are an estimated 1 million young carers aged up to 18 in the UK, with many carers aged under 10. I agree with my good friend, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and I suspect we are of one mind; I remember the carers who come to see me in my surgeries. I remember their strength and resilience, but also how often they go about their responsibilities so quietly and unassumingly. From this debate, I want them to know that we in this House see them and that they matter.

During this debate it is critical that we do not lose sight of the sacrifices that young carers make every single day. The responsibilities of caring mean that young people miss out on social plans, extracurricular activities and their schooling to help support those they care for. Young carers give time after school, at weekends, and live with the constant worry about the wellbeing of those under their care. Those are enormous burdens, especially for children.

I want to reflect on some of the work done by the previous Government to support young carers. It was the view of the previous Government that young people should be protected from inappropriate and excessive caring responsibilities. We recognised that the important roles they played often went unnoticed, putting their education and childhood aside to care for others. We committed to amending the school census so that it included young carers. That raised the visibility of young carers in the school system and gave us a wealth of demographic evidence on the young carer population. That allowed schools to better understand the impact of caring in education, particularly on issues including attendance and absenteeism.

In addition, the previous Government introduced the pupil premium in 2011. That gave schools additional funding to improve outcomes for children facing disadvantages, and helped young carers gain critical extra support. The previous Government also introduced bursaries to help with the cost of education, including travel, books, childcare and residential costs where needed. In the academic year 2023-24, more than £160 million of bursary funding was allocated to institutions to help disadvantaged 16 to 19-year-olds.

Furthermore, the previous Government introduced the Young Carers in Schools programme, which addressed the need to ensure that schools do more to identify young carers and increase their engagement in school. The programme set out 10 key steps to help schools to identify and support young carers, and each step provides a key practical tool that can be adapted to support the individual school.

Lastly, in 2018, the Conservatives published the carers action plan, which contains proposals to support young carers. It aimed to improve the identification of young carers, which built a rich and informative evidence base to better identify how support can be provided.

As we have heard, despite that, young carers are still under extreme pressure. In all our constituencies, there are hundreds—perhaps thousands—of young carers. In the borough of Solihull, of which is my constituency is part, the average age of a young carer is 11 and it is estimated that one in five young people is a carer. Although there are fantastic organisations that do excellent work in raising awareness about young carers and what they go through, including Solihull Young Carers, debates such as this are critical in raising awareness among parliamentarians.

Young carers often put their lives on hold for others. They are responsible for cooking, cleaning, supporting with schoolwork and many more tasks, as has already been laid out in this debate. That makes their lives a constant battle, balancing an array of different possibilities. In the education and training context, balancing schoolwork can be particularly hard. It is all too easy to put off that bit of homework because you have had to be up early to care and just want to catch up on a bit of sleep or get some well-deserved rest.

The Carers Trust’s most recent report from January highlights the concerning fact that three quarters of young adult carers say that their caring roles make it difficult to take part in training or educational opportunities. That research shows that young carers are missing on average 23 days of school every year—one month in total. Come secondary school, over half of young carers are persistently absent.

Some of the information we have on this topic is down to the previous Government and our steps to better identify young carers in school settings. I am more than happy to work on a cross-party basis to help our young carers. What work is the Minister doing to help add to the data? What conversations is he having with school leaders to ensure that we build on this important evidence base?

The evidence shows that young people who care are missing out on available learning opportunities. In reality, that means they will be struggling to keep up with their peers and will fall behind for the rest of their lives. When it comes to taking exams, the time spent out of the classroom will no doubt mean that their grades are lower than their peers’. What steps are the Government taking to help support young carers in school settings? What plans does the Minister have in that regard? We have heard today that the Carers Trust has proposed that every school has a young carer lead—a point made by the hon. Member for Harlow. Has the Minister considered that? Will it be part of the Government’s plans going forward?

While in Opposition, the now Education Secretary said:

“a Labour Government would ensure that young carers’ voices, needs and rights and the support that should be made available to them are taken seriously.”—[Official Report, 23 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 206.]

I noted that in the post-16 education and skills White Paper—this has been mentioned to me by a number of carers—there were no references to young carers. Would the Minister be able to explain his thinking? Perhaps it is to do with the Milburn report, which he might want to elaborate on.

In response to a written question about additional support for young carers in schools, the Minister for School Standards stated:

“The Government is preparing a cross-Government action plan for unpaid carers which we plan to publish later this year.”

On behalf of the Opposition, I ask the Minister whether he will be able to expand on the timeframe for that and what the key principles in those plans will be.

In November 2025, the Government commissioned Alan Milburn to author a report into the number of people not in education, employment or training, and part of that will include a call for evidence from parents and carers for young people. Given the pressures that young carers are facing, it is essential that that inquiry finds ways to better support young carers in education and training.

I am sure the Minister will agree that young carers cannot be left behind at school, because the knock-on effects are substantial, and it will lead to more young carers struggling to get into work. Does he recognise the correlation between NEET numbers and the number of young carers? Will he highlight the engagement he has had with the DWP in that regard?

We have heard some excellent speeches. Once again, I praise the hon. Member for Harlow, who set out the case for young carers so eloquently. I finish by paying tribute to young carers, who give up so much to care for those in need. Every single one of them makes an amazing sacrifice. I hope that many of them are watching, and that they recognise that we think they should be very proud of themselves. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about what steps the Government are taking.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 20th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

Apprenticeships should be the building blocks of a stronger economy. That is why the Conservatives are pledging to double the number. If the Minister has done his homework, he will know that any increase in apprenticeship numbers is due to the last-minute rush to do level 7, which this Government cancelled. In fact, if level 7 apprenticeships are stripped out of the figures, apprenticeship vacancies are at their lowest since 2020. With youth unemployment at an all-time high and apprenticeship vacancies at their lowest, it is time for the Minister to come clean: this Government are failing young people, are they not?

[Josh MacAlister]

The Conservatives’ new deal is funded by cutting opportunities in higher education. The Tory plan—[Interruption.] The Opposition Front Benchers’ proposal—

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

As the Minister said, on 23 March the Department told universities that weekend courses do not qualify for funding. The Student Loans Company’s own guidance changed only this year, and the issue affected 20,000 students, including those in key professions, such as nurses. The Secretary of State has been taken to court by nine universities, the National Union of Students is demanding that she halt her clawback, and Martin Lewis has said that this is an almighty mess. I heard what the Minister had to say, but I know that this Government always find someone else to blame, so will he confirm that any aggressive debt collection will absolutely be stopped and that payments will not be demanded from innocent students?

[Josh MacAlister]

I like the hon. Member, but unfortunately his question was written before I gave my earlier answer. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says that the Tory student loans plan would cost £4 billion and

“would not make an immediate difference to most graduates’ monthly repayments.”

SEND Provision and Reform

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 13th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I thank Members from across the House for contributing to a wide-ranging and passionate debate about an issue that affects each and every one of us, and many of our constituents. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for securing this important debate. He has been a passionate and determined champion for parents of children with special educational needs, and I thank him for all his hard work in this area. He was pragmatic and constructive, and he reflected what I have also heard from many parents, teachers and council leaders. I thank all the people who have contributed to the debate, specifically the parents who have reached out to have their voices heard today.

This issue affects each and every one of us. While I will focus on the much-delayed White Paper, let me be clear to the Minister that His Majesty’s Opposition will work constructively with the Government where we see that meaningful progress can be made. I acknowledge that the system is creaking under its own weight. Since I was elected in 2019, almost weekly I have met parents who are tired of fighting a system that was designed to help them and that enshrines their rights in law, but has become a barrier to supporting their children. I have campaigned for those parents, so I want these reforms to work, but I say to the Minister that Opposition Members will not shy away from asking questions that are difficult for the Government to answer. We will not allow the Government to spin their way out of this, because too much is at stake. I hope that she can work constructively with me in that spirit.

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I am inundated with correspondence from constituents from across Keighley and the wider Bradford district challenging the quality of EHCPs and the diagnosis procedure. One of my big concerns is that the White Paper reforms will lead to a standardised approach associated with the ISPs that will be rolled out. Does the shadow Minister agree with me about the direction that these reforms are going in under this Labour Government?

[Saqib Bhatti]

My hon. Friend makes the same point that has been made to me by many parents about the one-size-fits-all approach of these reforms. I want to give the Minister the opportunity to try to reassure some of those parents, because parents want answers and the children and families who are affected deserve them.

I have spoken to many parents and representative groups. There is a huge amount of anxiety about these reforms—a view that is shared by many parent-carer forums—which has not been helped by the delay to the White Paper or the drip-drip briefings suggesting that EHCPs would simply be scrapped. The Conservative position is clear: any reforms that come forward must enshrine parental rights in law and the Government must not water down those rights.

[Chris Vince]

On that point, will the shadow Minister give way?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Mr Vince, you have just stumbled into the Chamber—I don’t think so.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will take your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker.

There is very little detail in the White Paper around deliverability. That concern has been raised to me by a number of council leaders, headteachers and parents. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s own independent watchdog, explicitly says that the impact of reform on underlying costs remains “uncertain”. It is for the Minister to provide that certainty, but the OBR is not convinced that the reforms will close the funding gap. When the Labour party was in opposition, it had 14 years to think about what it wanted to do, so I hope that the Minister can provide some of those answers today.

The issue of timelines was raised during the debate. We all agree that the reforms are urgently needed, but full implementation is not expected until 2028-29 at the earliest. Changes to EHCPs will not begin until around September 2030, so a child who is now six will be 10 or 11 before they and their family feel any difference from any reforms. For a family with a teenager, reform will never arrive in time. That point was made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). Will the Minister tell the House, according to her analysis, how many children will have left school entirely before a single EHCP reform takes effect?

[Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)]

Parents in my constituency who have been in the SEND system are really fearful that we will have the White Paper and more change will be proposed, when the key element of delivery is local councils. The problem is that the situation is so patchy. Some councils are absolutely appalling—one in my area had an excoriating report—but others manage; nobody is brilliant, but some try to get by and do the EHCPs. How are we going to tackle patchy delivery?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I will come to councils and their funding shortly, but my right hon. Friend makes a really valid point. I hope the Minister heard him and will be able to provide an answer.

A number of parents have written to me, asking if I can put their questions directly to the Minister. Natasha and Lindy want to know why a dilution of parental rights has been proposed. Why are the Government removing the legal right to appeal, especially when 98% of cases are currently won by parents and carers? My right hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen) made this point very eloquently. If the logic is to reduce the cost of provision by removing some of those rights, the Minister should say so plainly. Parents need that clarity and that level of honesty.

We do welcome some points, including the principle of support in schools, evidence-led packages, and the idea of more speech and language therapists. There is broad consensus that earlier intervention is essential, and a statement of intent on that is most welcome. I want to focus briefly on speech and language therapists, because I campaigned on this issue as a Back-Bench MP with my constituent Mikey Akers and the famous footballer Chris Kamara. We met the relevant Health Minister more than a year ago; as Mikey said, in March 2024, he met the Minister for Care, the hon. Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock), who promised an action plan for speech and language therapy, but more than one year on we still have not seen anything.

A point has been raised about liaising with the Department of Health and Social Care. Has the Minister spoken to the Health Minister? Has there been any progress? The Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists has been very clear that delivering the Experts at Hand service will require an SLT workforce to be incorporated into the 10-year workforce plan, with ringfenced funding. In a written question in March, I asked the Minister how many speech and language therapists will be required to deliver the Experts at Hand service. She gave a great answer, but she avoided giving me the answer that I needed on numbers, so I hope she can answer how many specialists will be needed and where they will come from.

The British Dyslexia Association has also posed a question to me. One in three children in our classrooms need support for dyslexia. Will the Minister confirm whether the Experts at Hand service will include support for children with dyslexia, and whether specialist dyslexia teachers will form part of that workforce?

Let me turn to inclusion in the mainstream. At a recent meeting with Solihull school leaders last month, I heard serious concerns about the capacity pressures that the Government’s approach could place on mainstream schools. There was consensus around the principles, but there was also consensus that far more detail is needed on what inclusion actually means in policy terms and how gaps in staff training and funding will be filled.

[Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)]

I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. I was in the same meeting, and one of the big concerns was the loss of the special school planned for Tamworth Lane. Does my hon. Friend agree that that not only detracts from parents and pupils who would benefit, but puts additional pressures on mainstream schools?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I could not have said it better myself. That issue was in my borough, but the truth is that there are special schools across the country where the funding has been taken away. This is going to be essential, because we cannot have a one-size-fits-all approach. Will the Minister explain to those teachers how mainstream schools will be supported in terms of capacity, funding and training as these reforms are rolled out? The founder of the North Solihull Additional Needs Support Group has asked if there will be a legal backing for ISPs, and a number of Members have also made points on enforceability.

I want to get straight to the funding point, which is where I will end my remarks. At the Budget, the OBR identified a £6 billion SEND funding black hole. When the Minister was asked about that previously, she used the word “scaremongering”, but these are not our figures; they are figures from the OBR, based on information provided by the Government. Will the Minister confirm how large the shortfall is? Having looked at the numbers, I think it has shortened, but maybe she will be able to give a bit more clarity. If the gap was funded entirely from in the DFE’s £69 billion budget, it would imply a 4.9% real fall in mainstream schools’ spending per pupil—this is according to the OBR, by the way. There is no spending review until 2028-29, so maybe the Minister can give me some clarity on which Departments might be giving up their money for the sake of these SEND reforms. I hope she can provide some answers; I will write to her with the questions that I have not been able to ask.

Key Stage 1 Curriculum

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker, and to take part in this debate on play in the key stage 1 curriculum.

First, I thank the 106,082 signatories of this petition, including the 200 signatories from my constituency. I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for her opening remarks, and I also wish the son of the hon. Member for St Helens North (David Baines) a very happy birthday, on behalf of His Majesty’s official Opposition. I am sure that is all he ever wanted.

I praise the contributions from all hon. Members. It has been a thoughtful debate, which covered a whole array of issues. We may not agree on all aspects, I found it very fruitful to consider the different points of view. In particular, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), who made an excellent contribution, highlighting the need for consistency; I echo her question for the Minister on that point.

Having heard hon. Members at length today, it is quite clear that we all accept that play has an important role in children’s cognitive and social development, particularly in their early years. There is strong evidence to suggest that play is an important factor in a child’s development. It teaches young people resilience, problem solving and social skills, enhances cognitive development and so much more. Dr David Whitebread of the University of Cambridge argues:

“Play in all its rich variety is one of the highest achievements of the human species, alongside language, culture and technology. Indeed, without play, none of these other achievements would be possible.”

That is why the early years foundation stage statutory framework includes play in delivering learning and development. The official Opposition support that framework, which sets out this responsibility for early years education providers. As a father of two young children, I recognise the importance of play. I know that key stage 1 is a crucial time in a child’s learning and development, when children are set up for future academic success based on the foundation of knowledge and learning skills they receive when they first start school.

It is thanks to the knowledge-rich curriculum, underpinned by phonics, introduced by the last Government under the excellent leadership of Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb, that primary school children in England are now the best readers in the western world, with 80% of six-year-olds now reaching the expected reading standard, compared with only 58% in 2012. Millions more children are in good or outstanding schools, with tougher exams, better teaching standards, a rigorous curriculum and thousands of new academies.

I say that because, having heard the debate, it is important to be clear about what we are discussing. While play should certainly be part of that delivery, we believe that schools are best placed to decide how the curriculum is delivered to their pupils, and it is important that precious time in the classroom is not missed out on. I know that many hon. Members have pointed out that that is not what they are talking about, but there must be clarity about how play is delivered, because we all agree that we are preparing our children for the future.

That desire for freedom is why the official Opposition strongly oppose parts of the Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that restrict academy freedoms and seek to impose a one-size-fits-all approach on our education system. Why does the Education Secretary think that centralising decision making in Whitehall is more effective than empowering school leaders? The transfer of power from headteachers to unelected officials at the Department will be deeply damaging for children, and will see their education suffer as a result. It is not just the Conservatives who believe this. It was Sir Tony Blair whose Government championed the initial academisation of schools. I know he is greatly concerned about this, because it is a reversal of 30 years of consensus around academic achievement and development.

Although we also welcome the curriculum review, I have worries. It was a relief that the Government chose not to follow the example of their counterparts in Labour-run Wales by dropping phonics from the curriculum. However, as the Opposition have stated at the Dispatch Box, if everything is a priority, nothing is. If the Government want more play, they need to make clear which part of the curriculum has to be pushed to the side, and will stand to suffer, as a result. If the Government truly want to give children the freedom to learn and grow through play, they should confirm that they are committed to ensuring that the core skills of reading, writing and numeracy, which children need to succeed, will be part of that.

If more play is needed for children, there is another way of achieving that. I would like to talk about the use of screens by children. According to Ofcom, 25% of children—

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. May I bring the shadow Minister back to the issue of play, please?

[Saqib Bhatti]

Absolutely, Mrs Barker. The point that I was going to make was that if children are not using social media, that will free up more time for play. That is why that issue is really important. We all want to achieve the same things: more resilience and more capability. Hopefully the Minister will confirm whether the Government agree with us that the use of screens at such a young age can have a detrimental effect, and confirm whether they will progress with the evidence.

I accept that many parents are simply trying to do their best, and they want to have the best opportunities for their children. That is why I implore the Government to take a deep, hard look at the official Opposition’s approach to the use of screens and social media, and to the use of phones in schools. We have called for the use of phones in schools to be officially banned to allow for greater standards in schools. We are worried about the fact that children now spend more time online. Just last week I read reports that some young people try to swipe, and even tap, on books because they use digital devices.

[Tom Hayes]

This is a debate about whether play ought to be a mandatory part of key stage 1—do the official Opposition support that?

[Saqib Bhatti]

I made that very clear. We support the education statutory framework as it is, but I think that the questions around social media and the use of phones are really pertinent. That is what parents are writing to us, as Members of Parliament—

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask the shadow Minister to bring his remarks back to the petition, please.

--- Later in debate ---

[Saqib Bhatti]

I thank all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, and those people who signed the petition. The Opposition recognise the importance of play, which is why we challenge the Government to give further clarity on the development of the curriculum review, and what will be part of it. If everything is a priority, nothing is, so what will be part of that debate? I also challenge the Government to give more clarity about the freedom of schools, as asked for by my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon.

Oral Answers to Questions

Saqib Bhatti Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

I note that the Minister, in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), said that the Budget gave much clarity, but the reality is that the Office for Budget Responsibility analysis highlighted a £6 billion funding gap. I almost feel sorry for the Education team, because the Chancellor has backed them into an uncomfortable corner with her own Back Benchers with nowhere to turn, but they do need to be honest with parents and teachers who rely on these provisions. So again we ask: how do they intend to fill the £6 billion black hole hanging over the Department? Will there be cuts to services or to schools?

[Georgia Gould]

The Chancellor and the Secretary of State have been crystal clear that any remaining deficits will come from across Government. Opposition Members know that but are seeking to spread fear among parents. As we have heard across the House, there is already enough fear about the system. As I have travelled across the country, I have heard from so many families who have been failed—failed for years under the hon. Member’s Government. That is the reality. If I was them, I would come to this Chamber with an apology or with some answers, but we hear neither. We are acting. We are putting £3 billion into desperately needed specialist places. We are putting £200 million into teacher training, which is something that has been asked for across the House. We have changed Ofsted. We are putting money into early intervention for children. We will back children and families across the country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

That was a disappointing answer. The Government have been hiding behind the Cass review, which was published more than two years ago, for months. In April last year, the Education Secretary promised to publish the guidance by the end of the year, to give schools and teachers much needed clarity on these sensitive issues. That deadline has been spectacularly missed, and schools have been left in limbo to figure this out themselves. I implore the Secretary of State and the ministerial team to put ideology aside and finally act to protect our children. Will they do that?

[Georgia Gould]

This is a really serious issue that requires deep thought. We are working to ensure that we listen to the consultation and to experts to get this right for children. We make no apology for taking this decision carefully.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

That example, and the example mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), illustrates Labour Government spin perfectly. That £3 billion is short-changing parents and children with special educational needs. The decision to cut schools was rolled out without scrutiny, slipped out before the Christmas recess. Some 46 free schools and 18 special schools have been axed, with a further 59 in doubt. Why did the Secretary of State cancel the much-needed special schools and make life harder for families and children with SEND?

[Bridget Phillipson]

That is simply not right. We are investing billions into creating much-needed places for children with SEND. We did take the decision not to proceed with a number of mainstream free school projects where we had determined that the places were no longer needed. These were projects that, in some cases, provided questionable value. We are making sure that we are prioritising investment for children with SEND to create more than 50,000 places so that children can go to school much closer to home. On the wider question around reform of the SEND system, the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) recognise, as I do and as Members across the House do, that this is a huge challenge facing communities up and down our country. I would be delighted to work with them to make sure that we can get this right for children and young people. Yes, of course they will push us on certain areas, but I would like us to build a consensus, to take this forward and to make sure that children get the support that they need.