Showing every spoken contribution, including 5,750 under 12 words. Hide short remarks
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful speech, and Lucas’s poem really resonates with that. In my constituency, we have Evac+Chair, which creates evacuation chairs like the ones we have in Parliament. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current legislation, the stay-put policy from an outdated era—1962—does not recognise that the technology has moved on?
The British public are, by nature, a forgiving people. However, does the Chief Secretary to the Treasury not recognise that obfuscation of the kind we have seen over the weekend deeply damages public confidence?
Through the morass of leaks, one thing is crystal clear: this Labour Government broke their manifesto commitment. The Chancellor said: “I am asking everyone to make a contribution”,—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 393.] then went around the studios at the weekend saying, “I am asking ordinary people to pay a little bit more”. She is not asking; she is telling the public. Will the Minister come to the Dispatch Box and confirm that if my constituents say they will not pay their taxes, they will not face any criminal or financial repercussions?
When it comes to making decisions about poverty, it is difficult, so I would be grateful to understand the Secretary of State decision to change the winter fuel payments, which the Government’s own analysis said put 100,000 people into relative poverty and 50,000 people immediately into absolute poverty. Those are decisions that he and his Government made because they were concerned about the finances of the country. The Opposition now have similar concerns with regard to the child benefit cap changes, and yet the Government have made a different decision. Could he explain the reasons why there is a difference?
I have the automotive industry in my area too, and electric vehicles are really important. The implementation of the pay-per-mile change for electric vehicles is causing huge anxiety, as is the impact on the second-hand car market. We do not understand how this measure will work. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government must be clear on this, as it will have a big impact over the next two to three years while it is discussed?
I congratulate the Government on keeping one of their manifesto commitments, because their manifesto said, “Change”—it is just that no one realised that would be all that was left in the British public’s pocket when it came to it. I would like to give a second congratulations to the Chancellor, because I gather that she has won an award: best Dubai estate agent for 2025. We know that 250,000 people have now emigrated from Britain because of the impacts of her Budget. I expect she is now going for the next award in 2026. More importantly, this seems to be a Labour Government who are caught between trying to do things on purpose or by mistake. At the last Budget, they were up front that they were going to tax education for the first time. They did not realise that what they were actually going to do was put up taxes on hospices, pharmacies and GPs—that was all missed. Now a new Budget has come forward, and I call it the “ball of wool Budget”. Why? Because for the first time in history we have had this ball of wool unravel time and again, for weeks upon weeks, until it was finally spun into a yarn that we were supposed to believe, but the British public have seen right through it. It is unparliamentary to use the term “liars”, but I think I can use “Pinocchio”, and I think the Prime Minister and the Chancellor may well fall into that category. Rest assured, people in Leicestershire and up and down the country see right through this Labour Government. They see what this Budget was all about: trying to placate the Back Benches, and how? It is through £40 billion of tax rises in the first Budget and £26 billion of tax rises in this one. Don’t just take my word for it, because even if, before the last Budget, we believed in the fictional black hole, which was then disproved by the OBR, the Chancellor went on Sky News after that Budget and said: “We’ve now wiped the slate clean… It’s now on us…we’ve set the spending envelope on the course for this Parliament, we don’t need to come back for more. We’ve done that now”. She went on: “there’s no need to come back with another Budget like this, we will never need to do that again.” Yet here we are with £26 billion more tax on the British public, yet we still have weak growth, high inflation and no living within our means. The Chancellor has even broken her own manifesto commitment, which she has admitted, because in the 2024 Budget she said from the Dispatch Box: “I have come to the conclusion that extending the threshold freeze would hurt working people. It would take more money out of their payslips. I am keeping every single promise on tax that I made in our manifesto, so there will be no extension of the freeze in income tax and national insurance thresholds beyond the decisions made by the previous Government.”—[Official Report, 30 October 2024; Vol. 755, c. 821.] Yet, one year on, she said from the Dispatch Box last week: “I am asking everyone to make a contribution.”—[Official Report, 26 November 2025; Vol. 776, c. 393.] I need to tell the Chancellor that being asked for a contribution is not the same as being told, which is what this Government are doing. What would happen if someone tried to refuse, saying, “No, I’ve paid my fair share”? My constituents say, “I’ve done enough,” but they cannot just say no. They will get a fine or, worse, a criminal record and go to jail. So let us deal with the semantics and say what it is: a naked choice to increase tax on the British public. In the run-up to the election, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) was prophetic in what he said. We were not listened to, and I understand all the reasons why. He said, “A Labour Government will tax your holiday, your house, your GP, your pharmacy, your flights, your car, your pension, your savings”—have I missed anything? They have taxed charities, and even milkshakes—tax, tax, tax. The public have seen what a Labour Government have done. They were told about it, and they have seen it twice in a Budget. When it comes to the next one, I hope they will remember that.
Forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker. Whether it was the reference to either being a liar or Pinocchio, I withdraw them both.
Is the hon. Gentleman concerned that the Budget contains pay-per-mile charges on electric vehicles? How will someone crossing from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland be impacted by that taxation? The Transport Secretary is present; I think it is a question that many people may well be asking.
Will the Secretary of State give way?
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. As the Minister outlined, these regulations make modest and technical changes to the Judicial Appointments Commission—an additional professional commissioner and some tidying up of the eligibility for the senior tribunal commissioner. Even technical changes, however, sit within a wider landscape. We now have a judicial system in which unelected bodies have accumulated significant power, but without the accountability to Parliament or to the public that should accompany it. We saw that clearly with the recent controversy of the Sentencing Council’s two-tier sentencing guidelines, which would have meant different punishments for the same crime depending on ethnicity, faith background or immigration status. That represents a profound departure from the basic Conservative principle of equality before the law, and is every bit as much a departure from what the public instinctively and rightly expect: that sentencing should be based on the offence committed, not the personal characteristics of the offender. Although the Government now claim to oppose two tier-justice, they continue to defend and even expand the structures created under the last Labour Government —the very architecture that allowed these distortions to emerge in the first place. The JAC is one such body. It was created in the Blair era as a part of a constitutional re-engineering that removed power from elected Ministers and transferred it into arm’s length structures. What was marketed as modernising the constitution has instead weakened accountability, fractured responsibility and left Ministers able to duck the consequences of poor appointments or failing standards. That is why we set out our intention to replace the JAC with a judicial vetting committee within the Lord Chancellor’s office, bringing real transparency and accountability back into judicial appointments, while maintaining judicial independence in the courtroom. We do not believe that layering more commissioners on top of an outdated structure will restore public trust, nor do we believe that expanding the body responsible for judicial appointments without addressing the structural weaknesses that I have outlined will deliver the fairness and impartiality that people expect. We want a system where the Lord Chancellor, answerable to Parliament and the public, has proper responsibility for judicial appointments, supported by a transparent judicial vetting committee to ensure that appointments are made on merit but with clear accountability. That is how we restore trust—not by expanding arm’s length bodies, but by ensuring clear democratic lines of accountability. The public want a justice system that is more accountable, and we will continue in the months and years ahead to make the case for that.
I feel I should declare at the start of this question that I am one of the few people in the Chamber who apparently is not shocked at what has been going on this week. I am also not shocked that a Labour Cabinet member has said: “The handling of this Budget has been a disaster from start to finish”. Can the Chief Secretary tell us which Labour Cabinet member said that, and can they have a bigger role in the next Budget?
It is a great pleasure to see you presiding, Ms Barker. This has been a good debate, and very good points have been made by hon. Members on all sides, including the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who has just spoken. This is a rare and important opportunity to talk about the vital role of hospital schools. I do not intend to go through every measure in this Bill in detail; we did that at Committee stage, and I took that opportunity to go through many of its measures then. However, I will make a few broad observations about it. First, there are things in this Bill that we like. There are things in this Bill that were in the Conservatives’ earlier Bill, and we should all welcome some of the moves on, for example, multi-agency safeguarding, the expansion of the role of virtual school heads, and so on. Let us be clear—and Ministers, I am sure, will not try to say this today—that if the Government say that they want to withdraw the Bill, it does not mean that they do not like any aspect in it. Ministers are in charge of the Parliamentary timetable and are perfectly capable of withdrawing a Bill, noting that it is nicely set out in discrete units, and coming back the next day or the next week with a better Bill that does not include the bad bits and but does include the good bits. To be clear, there are many things in the Bill that it would be better to be rid of. It is, I am afraid, a mix of trying to fix problems that do not exist; some retail offers, at least one of which is set to backfire with significant long-term consequences; an over-invasive approach to parents exercising their right, and thereby often giving up a great deal personally, to home educate; and worst, an attack on the school freedoms that have underpinned the great performance improvements that we have seen in schools in England over the last decade. Let us remind ourselves what that record is. Our primary school readers are now the best in the western world. At secondary, our performance has improved from 27th to 11th in maths and from 25th to 13th in reading. The attainment gap has narrowed, and children eligible for free school meals are now 50% more likely to go to university than they were in 2010. What drove that improvement? It was standards and quality; brilliant teachers with autonomy and accountability; a knowledge-rich curriculum and proven methods, such as synthetic phonics and maths mastery; and a system in which schools learned from schools, with a hub-and-spoke network for different subjects and disciplines. But most of all, it was about academy trusts, where schools could learn from one another. We knew that that system would drive up standards only if it also ensured diversity and parental choice. People need clear information, which is why Ofsted reports are so important, and why Progress 8 replaced the previous, contextual value-added measure, as a much better way of measuring children’s progress at school. That choice is necessary, which is why academies and free schools were at the heart of our approach. I am sad to say that, all the while, there was what statisticians call a natural experiment going on. While those reforms were being pursued in England, in other nations of the United Kingdom—in Scotland and particularly in Wales—they were not. If anybody doubts the benefit of these reforms, they have only to look at the comparative results of the different nations of the United Kingdom. The Government have already stopped new free schools, and this Bill stops more schools getting academy freedoms and erodes the freedoms of existing academies. I have said that the Bill seeks to fix problems that do not exist, and there is no evidence that academies pay teachers less than other types of schools, yet we have these new rules on the statutory pay and conditions framework. There is no evidence that there are armies of unqualified teachers marching through our schools. The proportion of teachers in our schools who are not qualified today is 3.1%. Can you guess what it was in 2010, when the Government changed, Ms Barker? It was 3.2%. There are good reasons to have unqualified staff in school sometimes. Then there is the national curriculum. Schools are already obliged to follow a broad and balanced curriculum, and they get measured on that by Ofsted, yet we now have a requirement in primary legislation to slavishly follow the detail of the national curriculum in its entirety, thereby removing the opportunity for any innovation and differentiation. Alongside that, the Government have abandoned the EBacc, they are unpicking Progress 8 and, in parallel, they have moved the standard-setting function in technical and vocational education from an independent institute to a body that was first inside the Department for Education and then, inexplicably, moved into the Department for Work and Pensions. Will the Government meet their targets? Of course they will, because they are in charge of deciding what counts as meeting the target. We saw that the last time Labour were in government, with the famous “five or more GCSEs at grade C or above”. I counted 11 ways in which that statistic was massaged so that every year it looked like the results were getting better and better, when all the while we were tumbling down the international tables comparing attainment at school, and not only in the PISA results. The OECD survey of young adults’ skills looks at countries across the OECD, and we were the only country in that survey where the literacy and numeracy of young adults who had newly left school were worse than those of the generation about to retire. At least at that time, the then new Labour Government talked about academic excellence. Now, such talk is out of fashion, because it is believed that striving for excellence is somehow elitist. It is not—striving for academic excellence in state schools is the very opposite of elitism. It is what allows children and people from ordinary families to get on a level playing field with those who are in the elite. I say to Ministers, “Please, please don’t undo the progress of the last decade and a half”—some of which, by the way, built on what their predecessors did in the new Labour Government.
I am coming very close to the end of my speech, and I think Ms Barker would want me to continue to allow for more speakers.
In that case, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman asked me about that, because it is one of the great slogans of his party. One of my favourite statistics, however—people can look it up; it is available in an official publication—is that there were more children’s centres open in this country when I was Secretary of State for Education than in any year that Tony Blair was Prime Minister. The fact is that from 2008 to 2010, under Gordon Brown, there was a massive explosion in the number of things called a “Sure Start centre”. Basically, people could go to any old building, stick a sign on it that said “Sure Start” with a rainbow, and that became a Sure Start centre. The Education Committee, which is a non-partisan Committee of this House, conducted an inquiry in about 2011 or 2012 looking at Sure Start. We tried in chapter one to define what a Sure Start centre was, but we could not, because there was no actual design. One Sure Start centre that we visited had no children at all in it; some centres were fully fledged nurseries, family centres—you name it. There is very important work to be done with family hubs and other programmes. When we were in government, we made a huge increase in entitlements to early years education and childcare, which was a good thing to do. Ms Barker, I said that I would finish shortly, and I will. I say to Ministers that they should please come back with a Bill that can achieve widespread support, but that does not include these damaging measures that will undermine and harm education and opportunity.
David Laws!
As a simple, comparative piece of maths, if the Minister is saying that breakfast clubs will save families £450 a year, how much money is the Department for Education providing to the school to provide that breakfast?
The Minister says that the limit is three items, but actually, the limit is three in primary school, while I believe it is four in secondary school—she will correct me if I am wrong—so long as the fourth is a tie. Can she tell me for what reason a fourth is not allowed in primary school, if the fourth is a tie?
21. What discussions she has had with the chair of the curriculum and assessment review on her proposals to change the progress 8 measure.
Professor Francis was clear that the EBacc grouping should be kept in the progress 8 measure under the heading “Academic Breadth”. The Government have overruled the review, which is quite a big thing to do. The Secretary of State herself used to be a student of modern languages. Have they learned nothing from their terrible error in 2004, or what does she have today against modern languages and humanities?
There is nowhere in the DFE budget from which £6 billion could possibly come other than the core schools budget, so either SEN funding is being cut, the core schools budget is being cut—that implies 5% per head—or the Secretary of State has an explicit agreement with the Chancellor for the money to come from somewhere else, or from new taxes. Which is it?
The leak of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s economic and financial forecasts on Wednesday was obviously shocking, and it has rightly come up with a swift and complete report on how that happened. The partial information and the leaks from the Treasury over the many months in the run-up to the Budget were, in my opinion, equally shocking, and they caused real-life choices to be made in the economy and dampened confidence. Will the Chief Secretary to the Treasury therefore commit to an equally thorough and equally rapid leak report to be presented to this House?
Yes!
That was a fine performance, but anyone listening to it out there will think that the Secretary of State is in cloud cuckoo land. The Government have taxed working families up the wazoo. They have taxed tens of thousands of people out of their jobs. They are clobbering them left, right and centre with rising bills, and for what? It is not for growth—no, there is none of that coming—but so that they can go on a welfare spending spree. In the election, Labour promised the public that it would not lift the two-child benefit cap, just like it promised that it would not raise taxes on working people. It has broken promise after promise, and it has fudged the reasons why, to say the least. In this debate, the Government want a thank you from the public because they have handed them back a tiny fraction of the money that they took from them. I can tell you that the public are thinking of a phrase that ends in “you”—
The public are thinking of a phrase that ends in “you”, but the first word is not “thank”. The Government want to talk about the cost of living, but they are clobbering low and middle earners with tax rises and higher bills. That is why the majority of the country says that this Budget will leave their family worse off. The majority of the country has also said that they think the Budget is unfair. The Secretary of State talked about fairness, but the public do not feel that it is fair, and they are right. All the things that hurt disposable income are up: inflation, bills and taxes are up. The things that help—growth and employment—are down. Household disposable income has been revised downwards because of this Budget.
The hon. Member makes an impassioned case, but why did Government Members not make it at the election? Why did the Government remove the Whip from seven Labour MPs who voted against keeping the cap last year? Why did the Government make all Labour MPs vote to keep the cap, including the Secretary of State? That is the question that Members need to ask. The Government want to be known for having helped people with the cost of living. They must think that the public are stupid. Everyone out there can see that everything that the Government are doing is making the cost of living worse. They do not understand the basics, and the situation is apparently so bad that No. 10 has been giving Back Benchers lessons about Government debt. Given that we have seen Labour Back Benchers cheer at two job-killing Budgets, perhaps the Government need to expand the curriculum.
My right hon. Friend is right, and here is the problem: this Budget might have made the Back Benchers happy, but it is not the Budget that they promised at the election. Let me help them. To start with inflation, we left Labour with inflation back under control at 2%. That took difficult decisions, which needless to say Labour opposed, but it was important to do that because inflation hurts: it picks the pockets of families who find themselves working just as hard but able to afford less and less. However, under Labour, inflation has doubled thanks to the choices it made at the last Budget. We have now broken away from our international peers—Labour Members can check the graphs—and we have significantly higher inflation than Europe and the United States. In fact, we have the highest inflation of any major economy, and the OBR has said that, compared with March, it now expects inflation to be higher for longer. Why? It is because Labour has chosen to make the cost of energy and the cost of food more expensive, and to pursue policies that will push up rent. People’s weekly shop is up because of Labour’s choices: taxes upon taxes—a jobs tax, a packaging tax, a family farm tax. These are Labour’s choices, and they mean that the average family will pay almost £300 more for their groceries this year. With Labour’s war on farmers, is it any surprise that a pack of mince, a family staple, is up 40% this year alone? Let us take housing: rent is going up by £700 this year for the average renter. Labour does not understand that a lower supply of homes to rent means higher rents, yet it is written in black and white in the OBR document that its new housing taxes risk “a steady long-term rise in rents”. Labour’s choices mean that the cost of going away on a family holiday will set people back up to £400 extra because of its flight tax. Those choices mean that food will cost £300 more, rent will cost £700 more and holidays will cost £400 more—that is £1,400 more and I have not even got to energy bills or taxes yet. On energy, where do we even start?
I will come to what Martin Lewis says about the hon. Gentleman’s party’s policies in a second. Labour promised £300 off energy bills, but bills have gone up by £200 instead. Going by his own election promise, the Secretary of State owes the public a £500 cut. Why have those bills gone up? It is because of the costs introduced by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Hon. Members do not have to take my word for it—they can just listen to Martin Lewis, who says that wholesale prices have plummeted but energy bills are up because there are countless costs landing on those bills thanks to the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) wanted to talk about Martin Lewis a second ago but he does not want to hear about him now. Among those costs are the cost of backing up wind farms and switching them off when it is too windy, all the grid costs that are multiple times higher because of the system that Labour is creating, the warm home discount that everyone is paying for through their bills, the carbon tax that has gone up by 70% this year, and the tax on gas to pay for hydrogen that is coming in January. I am not sure whether Labour Back Benchers know about all these costs, but they add up to hundreds of pounds extra. No wonder the Secretary of State never did a costing; he did not want anyone to know the truth. He is piling hundreds and hundreds of pounds on to energy bills, and now he wants a round of applause for this £150 off them.
Let us talk about that £150. If someone has a gas boiler, the figure is £130. I remind the Secretary of State that that is almost everybody in the country. Oh yes, and if they pay tax, the amount has not come off—it has just been moved from their energy bill to their tax bill. Most importantly, that amount does not even touch the sides of what this Secretary of State will cost people in the end. Like so much of what Labour says, it is just sleight of hand. The real question is this: since the election, have bills gone up or down? The answer is up. The Secretary of State should be honest that this policy was never part of his plan. It is not part of Great British Energy or clean power 2030—all the things that he promised would lower bills. In fact, it is a tacit admission that he has failed. The centre knows that his plan cannot lower bills. In fact, if the reporting is correct, the Secretary of State fought against the policy, but he has been forced into it, because his promise to cut bills by £300 has become a national embarrassment to them all. It is taxpayers who are bailing him out to the tune of £7 billion.
We can exchange quotes, but the hon. Gentleman might want to—[Interruption.] Let me respond. He can go and check the quotes of the most respected energy economist in the country, Sir Dieter Helm, who says that the Government’s plan is locking people into higher bills for longer. One of the fundamental problems we have in this country is that energy costs are too high, and the Secretary of State is locking people into those higher prices for longer. If the Government truly want to cut bills for everyone, they should use our cheap power plan. Do you know what is extraordinary, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Government have come up with a package that costs the Exchequer more, cuts bills by less and does nothing to cut energy bills for struggling businesses. Food bills are up. Rents are up. The costs of holidays are up. Energy bills are up. That is cost after cost after cost because of the Government’s policies, and they want a round of applause for moving a fraction of those costs off energy bills and straight on to people’s tax bills. Only people with the Labour party’s grasp of numbers could think that that is a good deal. The Secretary of State says that there is an affordability crisis, but he does not explain the cause; the Government are the cause. That is before we even get to tax. Taxes on student loans, taxes on income, taxes on saving, taxes on housing, taxes on driving, taxes on pensions, and even taxes on taxis—if Labour could, it would tax the air that we breathe. Taxes are rising more in this Parliament than in any since the 1970s. The freeze in income tax thresholds means that the average worker on £35,000 a year will lose £1,000 in tax by the end of the decade. That is an extra two weeks they will be working, not to feed their family but to pay for Labour’s benefits bill. Let us be clear. When the Government say that they are asking for a contribution, they are not asking, are they? It is not like anyone can say no. I do not know whether there has ever been a more irritating formulation of words than that phrase, which we have heard so much over this weekend. There will be so many people out there who will look at this Budget and think, “Why do I bother? Why do I get up at 5.30 am? Why do I work overtime? Why do I barely see my family? Why am I going to pay more tax for people on benefits who are not working those hours?”
Let me make this point to the hon. Gentleman. The average person on benefits in work is working 20 hours, sometimes less. Why should a family with kids who are not well off and are working 40, 50 or 60 hours a week be worse off than a family on benefits working far fewer hours? I quit a job in the City to go to work for the Centre for Social Justice and work with people fighting poverty, and I have worked with struggling families in some way since I was 16. It is not compassionate to make welfare pay more than work. It is not a helping hand; it is a trap. The Government should also talk to the many couples who have put off having children or stopped at one or two children because they cannot afford it. Younger brothers and sisters simply will not be born. Those missing children are a personal tragedy for every couple who are having to make that choice, but there will be more of those decisions, because the Government are loading more and more costs and taxes on to hard-working families.
We have a fundamental difference in belief. Labour Members believe the best way out of poverty is welfare; I think the best way is jobs and growth, but the Government are killing those things. The problem with the Labour party, as we can see from its policies, is that it clearly thinks the only answer to the cost of living is redistribution, even past the point at which there will be no one left to redistribute from. Conservative Members know that jobs, low taxes and low costs improve the quality of life, but the Government are killing those jobs—every month under them, parents are losing their jobs. What do Labour Members think the cost of living is like for those families who have lost their salaries under this Labour Government? There are 170,000 fewer people on the payroll since the election. Young people cannot get a foot on the jobs ladder—because of this Government, the cost of hiring a young person has gone up by £4,000. They say they are raising the minimum wage, but they are crushing businesses’ ability to pay for it. The result is hiring freezes and redundancies, and for all those people just above the minimum wage who are also struggling, there will be no money left for wage progression. The best way to improve living standards is growth, but this was not a Budget for growth; it was a Budget for Labour Back Benchers. That is why it did not contain a single growth measure. Labour’s entire approach to the economy has been to raise the cost of basic goods, to raise taxes, and to crush wages and employment. The Government are expecting a shrinking group of hard-working taxpayers to pay for more redistribution, to cover the costs that they are choosing to impose on the public. In the words of one Labour Cabinet Minister, this Budget has been a “disaster”. Those are not my words—according to a No. 10 source, they think they are the words of the Secretary of State. Labour will not be known as the party helping people with the cost of living; it will be known as the party that has broken its promises to working people, broken its promises on tax and on bills, and broken the social contract that sees work pay more than welfare.
Order.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Order. Mr Shannon, this is a very narrow debate, specifically on junction 38 of the M6. I seek an assurance that your intervention relates only to that.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this important debate. Home education is often misunderstood. Some dismiss it as children avoiding education. Others portray it as an isolating environment, and even a potential safeguarding risk. Although that may be the case in the smallest handful of instances, the reality is that the large proportion of home educating families are those who have been let down by the state education system and act in the best interest of their child. For them, home education is not the easy choice but, often, a lifeline—a vital alternative for children who do not “fit” within the confines of mainstream schooling. Families turn to home education for many reasons. We might be talking about children who have medical needs or anxiety and have been pressured out of school, those excluded because of unmet special educational needs, or those enduring unresolved bullying. Some parents make a philosophical choice to educate outside the mainstream system. This discretionary right, exercised by parents and guardians, allows learning to be flexible, personalised and responsive. Taking away the option to home school through a poorly designed policy that fails to recognise the context and individuality of each home education journey is yet another example of the Government refusing to listen to communities they do not understand. We saw that with the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief for farmers, and we saw it with the unjustified housing targets imposed on rural communities. We now see it again—this time with thousands of home educators’ pleas being ignored. Despite the Government’s unwillingness to listen, I have had the pleasure of meeting numerous constituents and campaigners to discuss the potential impact of the flawed Bill and to listen to their individual stories. One has a child with Down syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and another who is autistic, with global developmental delays and dyslexia. They were overwhelmed and dysregulated by the one-size-fits-all design of the school system, but now they are home educated and can truly thrive in a personalised learning environment. Another person I met has a child with ADHD, autism and dyslexia who was severely bullied in two separate schools, leading to serious mental health struggles. For the wellbeing of both the child and the wider family, the child had to be removed from school and is now home educated and safe from ever enduring that traumatic experience again. Those are just two families among the thousands who have exercised their discretionary right to home educate their children in their and their family’s best interest.
I agree wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend demonstrates the perverse reality of what is proposed, in that these parents and children are often seeking to break away from being a one-size-fits-all family, but they are being pushed into a one-size-fits-all approach that risks stigmatising home education and the very children who benefit from it. Importantly, in the instances that I have cited, both families will be adversely affected should the Bill progress to further stages in its current state. As many home educators have argued, the Government, schools and local authorities are not the ones witnessing the emotional breakdowns before and after school. They are not the ones being forced to watch their children’s health deteriorate because of unsuitable environments. They are not the ones supporting them at medical appointments or sitting up with them late at night. A decision to home educate is not often taken lightly. Parents and guardians weigh up the benefits and consequences of all education options. If, after that careful deliberation, a parent or guardian, who knows their children best, chooses to take the leap into home education and provides a safe, stable and nurturing environment, they should be free to continue with that choice.
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly valuable point that none of us can disagree with in principle. Safeguarding has to be a foundation of the education system. The point is that the Bill attempts to provide a one-size-fits-all approach, but it does not quite strike the right balance. In the process, many families feel they are being stigmatised. It is not disputed that stronger safeguards for vulnerable children are essential. It is a tragic reality that many children in abusive or neglectful homes are safer at school than they are at home, but to push all home educating families into that category is not only an insult to the vast majority of responsible, caring families who turned to home education because of failures in state schooling, but a potentially greater safeguarding risk, as it stretches already limited resources even further. Requiring local authorities continually to assess and investigate perfectly safe environments diverts time and resources from children in genuine danger and urgent need of protection. BBC reports reveal that local authorities are set to face a funding shortfall of more than £5.7 billion by 2026-27. The Children’s Commissioner has warned that this crisis poses a direct threat to the wellbeing of children and young adults. Meanwhile, the number of school pupils with education, health and care plans surged by 71% between 2018 and 2024. Consequently, local authorities have amassed severe deficits in their high needs budgets, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimating a total shortfall of at least £3.3 billion at the end of last year. The Bill risks compounding the problem by stretching already overstretched resources, deepening financial pressures and weakening the fight against safeguarding risks. Thousands more children could be forced into placements within overcrowded schools, further exacerbating the crisis. A Public Accounts Committee report published at the start of this year concluded that the special educational needs system is inconsistent, inequitable and not delivering in line with expectations, which inevitably undermines parents’ confidence in it. The Office for National Statistics predicts that 1.5 million children aged 10 to 15 experience in-person bullying. Which of the figures I have outlined offers any reassurance that children and young adults with complex needs or traumatic pasts would be properly cared for if removed from safe, personalised learning environments?
The hon. Gentleman is right that it potentially could flag up those things; equally, it could be another burden on local authorities that are under-resourced to fulfil the requirements. It also could place a burden on parents and families that feels like stigmatisation. The right balance must be struck between strengthening the safeguards for children and young adults and ensuring that the new legislation does not unintentionally harm thousands due to a one-size-fits-all approach. Rather than demonising all home educators and introducing measures that, in practice, will fail to improve many children’s wellbeing, the Government should redirect their focus towards improving support for SEND provision and children’s social services, ensuring better working relationships between home educators and local authorities, and fostering school environments that actively tackle bullying and rising classroom violence.
22. What steps she plans to take to provide new specialist schools for children with SEND.