Munira Wilson MP: speeches

Speeches

• 20 Oct 2025 · Free School Meals: Eligibility Criteria · Hansard source

  More

  We Liberal Democrats warmly welcomed the Government’s decision earlier this year to finally adopt our long-standing policy of extending free school meals to all children in households in receipt of universal credit. At the time, Ministers repeatedly refused to confirm how they were funding this extension; research from Northumbria University now shows that, on average, every primary will have to find £11,000 and every secondary about £25,000 to do so, at a time when they are already cutting teaching assistants and extracurricular activities to balance the books. Given that the Secretary of State has made this policy and the rolling out of school breakfast clubs the centrepiece of her bid for deputy leadership of the Labour party, will she confirm when she is actually going to fund them?

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  The Minister said in her statement: “Our job is to give our constituents the investment and powers that they need”. Of course, we all agree with that, and today’s announcement is welcome. However, as a fellow London MP, she will be aware that the so-called fairer funding review will actually decimate the funding of many London local authorities. My own borough of Richmond is set to lose a staggering amount—over 90% of its core Government funding—and our most vulnerable and disadvantaged residents will suffer. [ Interruption. ] If you will indulge me, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am being heckled by Labour Members—

• 15 Oct 2025 · Pride in Place · Hansard source

  More

  Will the Minister at the very least commit to an impact assessment of the fair funding review changes for local authorities such as Richmond, and will she grant transitional funding?

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  I agree with my hon. Friend. I have heard about that hub-and-spoke model and would like to go and see it; I think it could be a good model to scale up. I also implore Ministers to look at the bureaucratic hurdles that local authorities face in putting specialist units in mainstream schools. I think it was the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier) who mentioned that London and other areas have falling school rolls. There is space opening up in our school estate for specialist units. My own local authority managed to take advantage of that in Nelson school, which is a primary school but, as of last week, has a specialist unit for secondary pupils with SEMH needs. That could provide a rapid expansion of specialist provision for children to be educated closer to home and among their friends and peers. Fourthly, we need support for local government. We have heard today that local authorities are racking up billions of pounds of deficits. Some of those costs are driven by the eye-watering fees charged by private equity-run special schools, some of which have a profit margin upwards of 20%. That is just wrong and immoral, and it is bleeding our councils dry. Local authorities are also spending £2.26 billion on SEND transport. In the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, the Government have proposed a potential profit cap on private social care providers. I was disappointed that every Labour MP voted down Liberal Democrat proposals earlier this year to cap the profits of private special schools; I hope that, with the new Minister in her place, they will think again on their stance on that amendment while the Bill is in the other place. Liberal Democrats are also calling for a new national SEND body to oversee and fund some of the most complex cases, where needs exceed a particular cost, to put an end to the postcode lottery of support, so that no child is left waiting and no council is left with unmanageable costs. Finally, we need a fair funding arrangement. We need to get rid of the perverse incentives enshrined in the £6,000 notional budget that schools are given for SEND support. The performance and accountability regime should not penalise schools for accepting SEND pupils. Mainstream inclusion is vital, but it is not a silver bullet; for inclusion to work, it must be properly resourced. Teachers need training, classrooms need resources and schools need the capacity to meet needs, but we know that budgets are already stretched to the max. I hear in my own constituency that teaching assistants are among the first to go, yet they are the ones supporting the children with special needs. Reform must be rooted in improving children’s lives, not simply managing down costs or limiting access to support. As we have heard today, some of the local authority funding reforms will significantly penalise local authorities—particularly my own, but also authorities across London and other parts of the country. In conclusion, it is abundantly clear that the SEND system in its current form is too slow, too inconsistent and too adversarial. We need and want a system in which children get the right support at the right time, regardless of where they live. Change is urgently needed for families across the country. They cannot afford to wait. I sincerely hope that the Government reshuffle will not cause further delay to the White Paper. We Liberal Democrats have offered to work constructively with Ministers on getting this issue right, with our five principles for reform. The Government cannot afford to sleepwalk into another Treasury-led disaster. They have to get this right, because every child, no matter their background or their needs, deserves every opportunity to thrive.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Children with SEND: Assessments and Support · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Dr Allin-Khan. I thank the Petitions Committee for granting this important debate and my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate with such a powerful speech. I welcome the new Minister to her place, and I look forward to working with her. As I think she has heard today, she has her work cut out. I start by paying tribute to the now over 125,000 people, including 323 in my Twickenham constituency, who have signed the petition and brought this important debate to the House. I pay tribute to the numerous campaign groups and charities that have been championing this cause, and I thank the many thousands of teachers and support staff up and down the country who are trying their very best to make our broken SEND system work in the best interests of our children. Many of those who signed the petition will be parents, carers and family members of children with special educational needs or disabilities, who are deeply worried about the proposals that have been reported in the media over recent months. These are not families who are gaming or hijacking the system, as I think some Reform Members have suggested, or taking the system for a ride. They are simply parents and carers who are juggling advocating and caring for their children, while also being subjected to a drip-feed of rumours in the press about their children’s future and how their rights might be reduced. MPs across the House know only too well from their inbox and mailbag, as we have heard so clearly and powerfully today, the many painful stories of how their constituents have had to fight for their child or children to get the support they need to learn and thrive. Sadly, some have struggled for so long that they have had no choice but to remove their child from school. Those are not decisions that parents or carers make lightly. It is clear for many families that the current SEND system is not working. The Conservatives left a system that their own former Education Seretary, Gillian Keegan, described as “lose, lose, lose”. Despite increased funding, outcomes for children and young people have not improved, and far too many are left without adequate support. At the same time, as we have heard, local authorities are being driven to the financial brink. The system is far too adversarial. Parents should not have to fight for their child to receive an education. We urgently need an overhaul of the whole system—but any reforms without children and families at their heart will fail. Scrapping EHCPs in a vacuum will not work; we need to see fundamental changes in how we deliver SEND support. The Minister may be aware that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) and I wrote to the Prime Minister and the Education Secretary back in July, outlining five principles for SEND reform. We Liberal Democrats believe that these five principles should be the guiding light for any reform of our SEND system. First, we must put children and families first. Any reforms cannot be a repeat of the welfare reform disaster, which was a Treasury-driven, cost-cutting exercise. The voices of children and families should be at the heart of any reforms brought forward. However, it was clear from the rally today that many feel that their voices are not being heard. Children’s rights to SEND assessment and support must be maintained. Secondly, as many hon. Members have said, early identification is key. We know that the earlier we act, the quicker we can prevent needs from spiralling. That means investing in early identification and intervention now. There are several educational and developmental checkpoints during a child’s early years and throughout primary school that could be expanded to identify additional needs; I would welcome information on what work Ministers are doing in that area. The Education Policy Institute has found that children with special educational needs who started reception last year were more than a year behind their peers. Staggeringly, those with an EHCP were already 20 months behind. We must work on narrowing that gap in the early years, and on giving children the help they need as soon as possible. The former Minister for Early Years, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), failed to answer this question when I asked him on the Floor of the House. I hope the new schools Minister will address how much of the £760 million for SEND transformation announced in the spending review will go towards early identification and intervention. Thirdly, we need to boost specialist capacity. With 19.5% of pupils in England identified as having special educational needs, capacity in state school provision must be increased, alongside improvements to inclusive mainstream provision. That means investment in new school buildings and staff training. The Liberal Democrats urge the Government to proceed rapidly with the opening of the 67 special free schools stuck in the pipeline, and I welcome measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that will allow local authorities to open special schools. We know that applications were repeatedly blocked by the previous Conservative Government, despite the desperate need for our state special schools, which are bursting at the seams.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Police Stations · Hansard source

  More

  1. What discussions she has had with the Mayor of London on the closure of front counters at police stations.

• 15 Sept 2025 · Police Stations · Hansard source

  More

  May I, as a London Member, begin by paying tribute to the brave police officers from the Met and many other forces who were policing protests on Saturday, a number of whom were injured in the line of duty as a result of abhorrent attacks? I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of all Members, in all parts of the House, are with them. Last week we discovered that Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, had admitted that he had known as long ago as November that the Met planned to close a number of police front counters across London, having promised just six months earlier in his election manifesto that not a single borough would be left without a police front counter. The decision to close Twickenham’s counter means that Richmond upon Thames will be left without one. Does the Minister agree that, given the importance of police counters in maintaining trust in and accessibility to our police, this decision needs to be reversed? Does she also agree that the Mayor of London has broken his promises, and that the Metropolitan police should be funded properly?

• 9 Sept 2025 · Infrastructure Strategy: Economic Growth · Hansard source

  More

  Over the summer, Heathrow finally published its proposals for a third runway. It is very clear that a lot of supporting road and rail infrastructure will be needed if that expansion goes ahead. Could the Chancellor outline to the House what estimates her Department has made of the amount of public investment that will be needed? Heathrow execs have been clear that they are not going to fully fund it themselves.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Adoption and Special Guardianship Support Fund · Hansard source

  More

  It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I warmly congratulate my friend and colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this debate and for so brilliantly outlining the issues at the start. I pay tribute to her tireless campaigning, alongside that of all the carers and parents who are here today and those who are not, who have been filling our inboxes and cannot afford to be here because they are busy looking after vulnerable and traumatised children who need our help. There have been many powerful and moving contributions today from hon. Members across the House. I salute the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) and his partner for stepping up to adopt, and I hope they get the support they need from the ASGSF that they have applied for. However, I was disappointed by his party political swipe, because until now, there has been cross-party consensus in all the debates I have been in on this issue that the changes made in April were short-sighted and extremely damaging. It is no accident that when I secured my urgent question in April, the day after the fund had expired, the Minister came forward and announced its extension. It is no accident that we are having this debate today, and that a written ministerial statement has come out with this fig leaf of an extension of the fund into next year. The reality is that, yes, there has been cross-party consensus, but we Liberal Democrats have led the charge on this and dragged the Minister, kicking and screaming, to make the announcements. I really hope that we do not end up being blindsided once again, as we were in April. We all welcomed the announcement in the Chamber that day but then, quietly, in the middle of the Easter recess, the announcement was snuck out that the fair access limits were to be reduced, the assessment grants slashed and the matched funding cut. These parents, carers and families deserve far better. I really hope that Ministers and officials have learnt the lessons from earlier this year. It is worth repeating and reminding ourselves who we are talking about today: some of the most vulnerable children in our communities, who have suffered unimaginable trauma, including abuse and neglect, sometimes witnessing unspeakable violence in their homes. Their carers—both adoptive parents and kinship carers—have made the most amazing commitment to step up and provide a loving, stable home to help heal and give them a second chance in life. The impact of these short-sighted cuts to the grants has been utterly devastating. The decision has resulted in a backlog of applications, delaying assessments and therapeutic support, and leaving already deeply traumatised children with a heightened sense of abandonment. I received this email from a parent in June: “My youngest daughter has recently had her sensory therapy put on hold for two months, due to all the delays by the government. My daughter started her new therapy at the beginning of February this year, had 4 therapy sessions and then had to stop due to the uncertainty around the funding. We were just starting to see real progress when the therapy stopped abruptly. It was what I can only describe as ‘opening Pandora’s box and violently slamming it shut again’. The regression we saw was severe. We experienced behaviours (including feral screaming), which our daughter had not displayed in over 4 years. This regression not only affected our youngest daughter, but also her older sister (who is also traumatised).” The charity Home for Good and Safe Families recently surveyed parents and carers to understand the impact of the recent changes to the fund. It found that the loss of therapeutic support is already affecting many families, particularly those without the means to pay privately, leading to increased inequality in access to services, with financial vulnerability closely linked to greater disruption. In mid-July, one adoption support provider reported that only 50% of their families waiting for support had any funding from the ASGSF in place. That has raised serious concerns about the impact on children’s mental health, with the vast majority of parents and carers saying that they are “extremely” or “very concerned” that their children’s mental health will be negatively affected. For some children and families, long periods without support have caused extreme difficulties—declines in mental health, suicidal thoughts, self-harming, school absence and an escalation of violence in the home. These are children whose lives have been characterised by loss and separation, for whom trusting and consistent relationships are vital. The cuts have meant that the Purple Elephant Project, which is now in the constituency of the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), right on the border of mine, has reduced its yearly programme of support to just 26 weeks. Six months is a long time in a child’s life. For some children and young people, gaps in therapy greatly risk their willingness to engage in therapy in the future. The Government’s failure to communicate their planned changes has also led to providers reporting substantial financial losses, particularly small providers such as Purple Elephant, which is relying on crowdfunding and emergency funds to stay afloat. Some, including Purple Elephant, are already having to cut their staff, and they are concerned that some therapists will leave the profession altogether. We cannot afford that when we look at the scale of the mental health crisis not just among children in adoptive and kinship care, but more broadly across society. The irony and the frustration is that the Government have sabotaged a tool that works. An evaluation of the fund in 2022 found that at the end of funded support, the mental health difficulties of school-age children improved, and there were also significant improvements in family functioning. Some 94% of parents say the fund is “absolutely vital” or “very important” to their family and is a need that could not be met elsewhere. The ASGSF helps families to stay together and prevents family placement breakdown. It also helps children to stay and thrive in school. One adoptive parent I met in my constituency was very clear that her child would not have been able to stay in school without the supportive therapy provided by the ASGSF. As we have heard, there is anecdotal evidence of potential adopters being put off going through the process because of concerns about a lack of post-adoption support. We know that for every child adopted, £1.3 million-worth of value is created through improved outcomes from adoption, and there are the lower financial costs of adoption compared with care. The economic case is unquestionable. The Government keep telling us—the Minister with responsibility for early years, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), just told us this in the main Chamber—that giving the children the best start in life is one of the Government’s biggest priorities. If they really mean that and want to break down barriers to opportunity, this Minister needs to understand the outrage and despair not just of Members here, but of families and carers up and down the country. The Government have sabotaged a supremely effective fund. Aside from today’s announcement, there are rumours about the Department reforming the fund, and a paper has been released by Adoption England that proposes devolving funding to regional adoption agencies or local authorities as grants. A whole host of organisations are publicly opposed to those proposals and are concerned that the model will compromise fair and equitable access of funding for all children, regardless of where they live or the agency they have been adopted through. Furthermore, regional adoption agencies are typically responsible only for adoption services. We are not sure what this would mean for special guardians or those who have child arrangement orders in place and how the funding would be split between kinship families and adoptive families. The Government desperately need to consult families and sector experts. I note that today’s written ministerial statement alludes to engagement—not before time, because people were not consulted or engaged with when the changes were made at Easter. I believe, and I have told the Minister this privately and publicly, that she and her Department deeply care—as I and my hon. Friends do—about the lives of children and families. But I think that the failure so far in joined-up policymaking and engagement is actually being driven by the Treasury, not by her or her Department. If she needs help with the Treasury, which is desperate for savings, she has support here in all parts of the Chamber, and we will continue to bat for children up and down this country. I reiterate the calls that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex made at the start of this debate. We need to see a permanent ringfenced fund restored to the previous full amount in terms of grants per child. That will mean extending and expanding the size of the fund. I have told the Minister this before: she can find the money in the £46.5 million budget that the Department had for advertising, consultancy and marketing costs in the past year. She should halve that budget and instead expand the ASGSF by 50% so that the fair access limits can be restored to what they were. There needs to be an end to the surprise annual announcements. As my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) said, children are not adopted or taken into kinship care for one financial year. That is done for life, and with love, and this Government should honour that. I hope that the Government will start to engage properly with the sector and families up and down the country. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex, I ask for a two-year moratorium on further changes so that the reforms are evidence-based. It is incumbent on all of us as corporate parents to ensure that our most vulnerable children are properly supported and given the best second chance in life, which many of these children are being offered. This is a tiny budget in the context of huge Government spending, but it has a massive impact on those precious and fragile lives. It is time to think again. It is time to do far better. It is time to put children, who are our country’s future, first.

• 4 Sept 2025 · Business of the House · Hansard source

  More

  I was disappointed that the Leader of the House, when she was celebrating summer moments, did not mention our Lionesses’ amazing victory in defending their European title. In a less positive moment over the summer, the Metropolitan police announced the closure of Twickenham police station’s front counter as part of plans to close half of London’s police counters and reduce hours at many others. This comes despite Sadiq Khan’s 2024 manifesto commitment to maintain a 24-hour police counter in every borough, and Richmond borough will now be left without one. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the Met police’s funding for the forthcoming year and beyond, especially as the closures come on the back of the slashing of the Royal Parks police and our school police liaison officers?

• 4 Sept 2025 · Early Education and Childcare · Hansard source

  More

  High-quality early years education is the best possible investment we can make in our future. Whether we are serious about tackling the SEND crisis or the attainment gap, or are simply concerned to give every child the best start in life, proper investment in the early years is one of the strongest levers we have. We all know that for far too long the previous Conservative Government neglected the early years sector, leaving a legacy of sky-high fees and childcare deserts in their wake, particularly in disadvantaged areas. We Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of more school-based nurseries, alongside the extension of funded childcare hours—but let us not forget the deep problems facing the private and voluntary sector. Without addressing the massive financial strain on those nurseries and childcare providers, we can never hope to deliver for families. Their survival is absolutely central to supporting families up and down the country to thrive. The Government’s jobs tax, I am afraid, has only added fuel to the fire. The financial pressures of underfunded hours, the national insurance contributions rise, and inflation have left many providers on the brink. Indeed, some nurseries are already telling parents that they may be unable to sign the new contract due to financial pressures. Earlier this week, in a letter published by the Early Years Alliance, a survey of more than 800 providers found that 44% could not meet demand this September, while one in six has already cut funded places. That is coupled with a crisis in recruitment and training of staff in the sector; if the providers and the staff are not there, how can the Minister expect his expansion to deliver for parents up and down the country? Will the Minister commit to urgently reviewing the funding rates, so that they reflect the real cost of delivering high-quality early education? At the same time, will he work with his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that we extend and fully fund parental rights so that families up and down the country have a real choice between whether they want to stay at home for a longer period in the early months, or go out to work full time?

• 2 Sept 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source

  More

  Communities such as Teddington in my constituency will very much welcome the new community right to buy. At Udney Park, playing fields have lain derelict for more than a decade. However, although the Bill makes provision for what happens when there is a disagreement over price, it is silent on what happens when a community bid is refused by a buyer even at market valuation. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government must look to go further on that point?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Early Years · Hansard source

  More

  May I join Ministers in thanking our school and college staff up and down the country for their dedication? I wish them happy and restorative summer holidays. Children with special educational needs who started reception last year were over a year behind their peers, according to the Education Policy Institute. Staggeringly, those with an education, health and care plan were already over 20 months behind—the widest gap that the EPI has recorded since it started monitoring in 2013. Given the importance of the early years in narrowing the gap, it is crucial that we give every child the help that they need as soon as possible. Will the Minister confirm how much of the £760 million for SEND transformation announced in the spending review will go towards early identification and intervention?

• 21 Jul 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source

  More

  I echo the Secretary of State’s remarks about the tragedy in Minehead. My thoughts and prayers are with all those affected. Every parent who puts a baby into childcare wants to know that they are safe. In the light of the crucial role that CCTV played in the harrowing case at Twickenham Green nursery in my constituency, which resulted in a nursery worker being convicted of 21 counts of child cruelty last month, and in the tragic case of Gigi Meehan in Cheadle, will the Secretary of State commit to issuing fresh guidance to nurseries on the use and regular monitoring of CCTV footage?

• 16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome this opportunity to talk about giving every child the best start in life. I suspect there are not many people in this Chamber who would disagree that every child, no matter their background or needs, deserves the very best start in life. It is our duty as elected representatives and policymakers to ensure that parents and carers have access to the help and support they need to ensure that every child gets that best start in life. The Best Start family hubs announced last week are very welcome and present a great opportunity for the Government to address the growing inequalities across our education system that were left behind by the previous Government. If resourced properly, the Best Start family hubs expansion could help to achieve many of the things that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been calling for, including: the early identification of special educational needs and disabilities; contact time with mental health practitioners; and access to nutritional advice. However, the Government’s ambitious aims must be matched with effective delivery. Children and families cannot afford for the Government to get this wrong, after many years under the Conservatives when early years provision really started to disintegrate. The strategy states that “high-quality early education and childcare boosts children’s life chances and enables parents to work”. I warmly welcome plans to invest in training and qualifications to raise the skill levels of the early years workforce, but I am afraid that the Government’s rhetoric does not quite meet the reality on the ground. The funding promised by the Conservative Government for their 30 hours childcare proposals fell far short of what it actually costs to deliver that provision, and I am afraid that Labour’s current proposals are also insufficient for nurseries. Labour’s ill-advised national insurance hike has not only hampered economic growth, but put hundreds of charitable and private nurseries at risk of collapse. Indeed, the Early Years Alliance reports that nearly one third of providers are at risk of permanent closure in the next year, and that four in 10 would reduce the number of funded places for three and four-year-olds. When coupled with damaging new guidance to local authorities on funding agreements, the Government risk expanding the childcare deserts left behind by the Conservative Government. What is the point of expanding early years entitlements for children if parents are not able to access them because providers are simply unable to fulfil them? With the expansion of childcare provision, keeping our children safe is paramount. I welcome confirmation last week that the frequency of Ofsted inspections of early years settings will increase and that work is being done to develop an effective approach to group inspections. However, as the Minister knows from some of our conversations, if we are to prevent tragedies, such as the case of baby Gigi Meehan in Cheadle and the recent shocking case in my own constituency that last month saw a nursery worker convicted of 21 counts of child cruelty at Twickenham Green nursery, Ministers must go further and they must go faster. The early years foundation framework urgently needs to be strengthened, and better guidance needs to be put in place for how we keep babies in particular safe in early years settings. That is particularly important as we see the expansion of childcare provision for the under-twos. I hope we will see clearer guidance on safe sleep practice, but also on the use of CCTV, which proved critical in the cases I cited, and on the regular review of that CCTV footage. The strategy points to a “golden thread of evidence-informed practice”, so I hope the Minister tell us whether she will work with health authorities and expert charities to co-ordinate national safe sleep standards for use in early years settings. We must ensure that that goes hand in hand with multi-agency safeguarding training. Giving children the best start in the early years also means giving parents genuine choice on whether to spend more time at home or go back to work full time. I am immensely proud that it was the Liberal Democrats in Government who introduced shared parental leave—yet, years later, take-up remains far too low because of low rates of statutory maternity and paternity pay, and shared parental leave pay. I am aware that the Government have started their review into parental leave and pay, which I warmly welcome. The Liberal Democrats have long called for statutory maternity and shared parental pay to be doubled to £350 a week, and for fathers to be entitled to a month of paternity leave, as well as a “use it or lose it” month of shared parental leave, because we know just how valuable the first months of a child’s life are and the importance of the involvement of both parents. I hope the Minister and his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade will heed our calls. I also want to press him again on the strong economic and moral case for granting statutory paid leave for kinship carers, so many of whom are forced out of work when they take on caring responsibilities to provide a safe and stable home for children. We must acknowledge that despite all efforts, some children simply will not get the best start in life due to unimaginable trauma, which can mean that the only safe course of action is to separate them from their birth parents. It therefore falls to us collectively as corporate parents to ensure those children get the very best second chance at life. Family hubs must be more than signposting services; they should offer trusted relationships and trauma-informed practice embedded within staff training and service design as part of the Government’s commitment to rebuilding trust with families. Continuing on that theme, the adoption and special guardianship support fund, as many Members will know, provides funding for vital therapy to help the most vulnerable children to process their trauma. These sessions are not easy, with some children taking months to even step through the door, but it is vital that these children are given the space, time and support to relearn how to trust adults. Slashing the funding for each child from £5,000 to £3,000 means that many will stop their therapy sessions just as they get through the door and start to make progress. Not only is this incredibly frustrating for the adoptive parents and special guardians; it sadly compounds the child’s tragic belief that all adults do is let them down. Both the Minister who opened the debate and the Minister for Children and Families, who is sitting next to him on the Front Bench, know that I am determined to see the full £5,000 grant funding restored for every eligible child. I press the Minister again to go to the Treasury and demand the additional funds to meet the growth in demand for those grants so that the next generation can believe that there are adults, and even Governments, worth trusting. I have pointed out previously that halving the Department’s advertising and consultancy budget would enable the ASGSF to grow by 50% from £50 million to £75 million to meet that additional demand. Short of that, I urge the Minister not to leave parents, carers and children in limbo again by waiting until the last minute to announce whether the fund will continue next year. Instead, I hope that Ministers will commit to announcing the future of the fund by September, now that we have had the spending review, so that families and providers can plan and have certainty for the future. Finally, parents and carers have for far too long been subjected to an adversarial special educational needs system where they have had to fight tooth and nail to secure their children’s right to learn. A good education helps children to discover who they are and what they are good at, but sadly far too many have been denied the help they need. As the Chair of the Education Committee has pointed out, the rumours that have been swirling have left many families up and down the country deeply concerned. We met a number of those families in Parliament yesterday, and I know that the inboxes of Members across the House have been filled with worried emails on this matter. It is clear the system is broken and needs reform, but any change must have children at its heart, not a Treasury drive for savings by removing rights in a vacuum. I am glad to see that inclusive practice for children with SEND will be embedded in early years teaching; early identification is crucial in ensuring that children can get the help they need when they need it. However, it remains to be seen just what that help will be. The Government have failed continuously to communicate with those directly affected by their decisions, but they have the chance today to tell parents whether education, health and care plans will be removed from any child. I reiterate what my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey) said to the Prime Minister last week, and what my right hon. Friend and I said in the letter we sent to the Education Secretary and the Prime Minister, in which we set out the Liberal Democrats’ five principles for SEND reform. We are very happy to work constructively with the Government on that reform, because we know that all these children—whether they have special needs and whatever their background—deserve the very best start in life.

• 16 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches tried to put forward an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to extend the profit cap that the Government have proposed for children’s social care homes run by private equity firms to the special schools creaming off profits from our local authorities and denying vulnerable children the education they need. However, I am afraid that Labour Members voted against it, so will he join me in convincing Ministers to think again while the other place is considering the Bill?

• 14 Jul 2025 · State of Climate and Nature · Hansard source

  More

  The Secretary of State rightly says that British leadership matters and that the choices we make as a country will have an impact on future generations. I do not doubt his personal commitment to tackling climate change and delivering net zero, but is he sure that all his Cabinet colleagues are on the same page as him, not least the Chancellor of the Exchequer given her unwavering commitment to expanding not just Heathrow, but Gatwick, Luton, City and Stansted, despite the advice and concerns of the Climate Change Committee?

• 14 Jul 2025 · Deprived Areas: Funding · Hansard source

  More

  It is absolutely right that funding follows need, but may I gently urge the Minister to look at how the proposed new funding formula for local authorities affects boroughs across London, given that it does not consider housing costs, which we know are the biggest driver of poverty and deprivation in London?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Children’s Social Care · Hansard source

  More

  I congratulate the Chair of the Select Committee on this report and thank her and the Committee for their work on it. I particularly welcome the recommendations on kinship care, which mirror closely the measures in the ten-minute rule Bill that I introduced in this place three years ago and which we on the Liberal Democrat Benches have been campaigning on. I hope she will work cross-party to make sure the Government go further and faster on kinship care. I want to pick up on the Committee’s recommendations on the adoption and special guardianship support fund. She and I know how distressed the families of children who have been adopted or put into kinship care who need this support are. It is a very small amount of money—does she agree that if the fund could be expanded slightly, all children could go back to having the level of support they had before the cuts were introduced a few months ago?

• 10 Jul 2025 · Educational Attainment of Boys · Hansard source

  More

  Can I start by warmly congratulating the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Sam Rushworth) on securing this incredibly important debate and on his powerful and insightful opening speech? It behoves all of us to spend more time on this topic, so I am grateful that he has made me look into it more than I had previously. It goes without saying that our education system should enable every child to flourish, no matter their gender, needs or background, but as we have heard all too clearly already, for too long cohorts of boys have failed to thrive in our education system in the way that they should, with a widening attainment gap between boys and girls, particularly among white working-class boys. We have heard the statistics already, and I note that many of them come from the excellent report by the Centre for Social Justice, but they bear repetition because they are so shocking. Where 75% of girls are school-ready, only 60% of boys are. In GCSE exams boys achieve on average half a grade lower than girls across every subject, and at A-level girls outperform boys by an average of over a grade and a half across their best three subjects. Too many boys are quite clearly failing to reach their potential at school, and this is having severe and long-lasting consequences for our society and the economy. Since the pandemic alone, the number of young men aged 16 to 24 who are not in education, employment or training has increased by a staggering 40%. According to the Higher Education Policy Institute, men with no qualifications are nearly twice as likely as women with no qualifications to be unemployed, and if they are employed, they are more likely to work in hazardous, menial or stagnant roles. That makes men less likely to look after their mental and physical health, leading to higher rates of substance abuse, smoking and alcohol consumption, lower life expectancy, and much higher rates of imprisonment and death by suicide. It is hardly surprising that so many boys feel hopeless. Some 41% of teenagers report that they have been taught that young men are a problem for society. Tim Page, service co-ordinator at Catch22, said: “There is no trust or hope in the future, a young man from a disadvantaged background has no clear path towards making a future for themselves, the only options for hundreds of boys and young men I have worked with are crime or benefits.” I think that should make us all stop and reflect. Education is obviously vital in tackling this tragic and disturbing trend, not just to enable pupils to achieve good grades and a decent salary, but to inspire our children so that they grow up to do good and important things as part of a thriving community and society. I agree with the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland; I think it probably is time for a gender-specific strategy looking at boys in particular, but as the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), pointed out, some of the wider systemic challenges facing our education system have a particular impact on boys. As the Government are considering a number of these issues, I think it would be worth looking at them through a gender-specific lens. We need good teachers to stay in our boys’ lives and to guide and encourage them, whether on career options for the future or just as good role models, yet over the past 12 years more than 40,000 state school teachers left within one year of qualifying, and just 24% of the overall teaching workforce are male and 30% of primary schools have no male teacher at all. I was thinking about this last night, actually. Both my children are at primary school. One of them will leave in the next few weeks, and by far and away the teacher that she has talked about the most in her seven years there has been a male teacher. He has only been teaching her for a day a week in year 6, but all the kids love him and look up to him. I have never heard them speak about any other teacher in such a way. It is largely a female-dominated school, and it is wonderful to see such affection for a male teacher and such a role model for all the children, both girls and boys. Many attribute the shortage of teachers—both male and female—to the conditions that teachers face and a lack of career progression. I believe that the presence of more male teachers would normalise learning as a suitable activity for men and boys and may especially help children who do not have positive male role models at home. However, as the Minister knows, schools are facing the impossible task of trying to find more money in their already squeezed budgets to cover underfunded national insurance increases and teacher pay rises. While the Government have promised to recruit 6,500 more teachers, I have yet to see how they will be able to achieve that. Some of the hopelessness that many boys are experiencing also stems from inadequate mental health support. We know that boys are twice as likely as girls to be excluded from school. Sadly, exclusion and criminal activity are too often intimately related. Those who are excluded multiple times from school are more likely to have a younger age of first conviction. Mental health researchers have noted that boys in emotional mental distress tend to use coping strategies that externalise into violence and destruction, while girls are more likely to internalise into self-harm and depression. We Liberal Democrats have long called for a dedicated qualified mental health practitioner to be placed in every primary and secondary school to help tackle mental health and behavioural concerns early. While I am glad that the Government are continuing to roll out mental health support teams in schools, I fear that those teams are really overstretched, because they are often shared between several primary and secondary schools, with perhaps half a day or a day a week of mental health practitioner time in each, meaning that children do not have consistent access five days a week to a trusted person to support them with their mental health. I hope the Minister will say something about how the roll-out can be sped up and those teams grown so that there is more coverage for each of our schools. Of course, there is a big overlap between mental health provision and special educational needs and disability provision. Boys make up over 60% of those receiving special educational needs support and over 70% of those on education, health and care plans. Those receiving SEND support are more than twice as likely to be excluded as the average boy, and more than five times as likely to be excluded as the average girl. Too many children are being forced out of school due to a failure to provide the required support for them to learn. I have heard time and again from parents and kinship carers who feel that they have been let down by the SEND system in this country and that they are having to try to educate their children with no support. That has very much driven up the number of children being home-schooled, so I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to assure parents and carers of children with SEND across the country that their rights will not be rolled back when the Government look to reform our broken SEND system. Families must be at the heart of these changes, so that all children can access the support they deserve. I urge the Minister to look at the five principles for SEND reform that the Liberal Democrats published yesterday. Finally, seriously tackling the feeling of hopelessness among young boys means looking at the online world. We have seen from research that algorithms are feeding increasingly violent and misogynistic content towards boys. With 60% of children aged eight to 10 having a social media account, it is wrong that companies can profit from addictive and harmful algorithms. We need to start taking a health approach to online safety, with tighter regulation of the tech giants and by empowering and educating young people and the adults who care for them about the online world. Crucially, we need to provide alternative spaces and activities for young people, so that they are not always glued to a screen when they have spare time. The Liberal Democrats want the digital age of consent raised, to end addictive algorithms and to stop companies trading on our children’s attention. I very much hope that the Government will not kowtow to Donald Trump and remove the digital services tax, but instead treble it, so that that money can be invested in improving our children’s wellbeing and mental health. I once again thank the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland for securing this important debate, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.

• 7 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  Every child deserves to have the very best start in life possible, so I welcome any measures to tackle inequality and improve support for the early years and for families. I therefore welcome today’s announcements both on the hubs and around the early years workforce and helping to raise the professional status of those who work with children in the early years. That is something that Liberal Democrats have long been calling for, given the level of responsibility and expertise required in that profession. With the hubs, as we have heard there is a great opportunity to identify special needs early and provide contact time with mental health practitioners and important advice for parents. However, these changes need to go hand in hand with addressing some of the deep problems facing charitable and private early years providers, and I hope the Government will start by reversing the national insurance hike for early years and nursery settings together with reviewing the rates they pay to providers to ensure that they actually cover the costs of delivering high-quality care and early years education, because we know that many nurseries across the country are struggling. While I have the Secretary of State’s attention on early years, may I raise with her the tragic cases of Gigi Meehan in Cheadle and the children at the Twickenham Green nursery in my constituency, who were completely failed by their early years providers at the hands of extremely cruel, vicious, uncaring staff? The verdicts in both of those cases have been utterly shocking. I know the Minister sitting next to the Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), met my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr Morrison) last week, and although the Secretary of State’s announcement did not include it, I have read in some news reports that the Government will be increasing Ofsted inspections for nurseries, something that Gigi’s parents, my hon. Friend and I are pressing for. However, over and above that, we do need to see a strengthening of the early years framework to include the use of CCTV. May I, Madam Deputy Speaker, say one final sentence and press the Secretary of State once again to put the parents and carers of children with special needs across the country out of their misery—

• 7 Jul 2025 · Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life · Hansard source

  More

  And rule out scrapping EHCPs—

• 1 Jul 2025 · Ten-year Infrastructure Strategy · Hansard source

  More

  The infrastructure plan reiterated the Government’s support for a third runway at Heathrow, a project that the Chancellor has repeatedly stated will be privately funded. However, given the vast amount of rail and road infrastructure that will be needed to support a bigger Heathrow, as well as the huge risk a private company would take on, which it would want underwritten by Government, could the Chief Secretary to the Treasury outline to the House how much taxpayer cash has been earmarked as needed to enable a bigger Heathrow?

• 1 Jul 2025 · Parental Leave Review · Hansard source

  More

  I welcome the review and, in particular, the fact that it will look at leave for kinship carers. The Minister knows that I and my Liberal Democrat colleagues have long campaigned for statutory paid leave for kinship carers, given their sacrifice and given how many fall out of the workforce when they take on those responsibilities. May I press him that within the 18-month timeline for the whole review, he might look to fast-forward kinship care leave? The economic case, both short and long-term, is so strong that, frankly, he ought to be able to move on that aspect quicker than some of the others he has to consider.

• 30 Jun 2025 · Welfare Reform · Hansard source

  More

  My constituent Steve had been a fit, active working person until about a year ago. Since then, he has been debilitated by ME, which has left him able to get out of the house for only about an hour every fortnight. Even getting dressed leaves him needing a lie down. PIP is already difficult for people like Steve to access. He told me that he would rather have lost both his legs than have got ME. Could the Secretary of State tell Steve why, if he had got ME two to three years later, he almost certainly would not have been eligible for any PIP at all?