Maya Ellis
MP for Ribble Valley · Labour · United Kingdom
“The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to direct NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board to commit to a full reopening of the hospital to provide health services to benefit the community, and to promptly address fire safety concerns, providing a timeline to reas…”
“I am proud to present this petition on behalf of residents in Longridge in my constituency of Ribble Valley regarding the future of Longridge community hospital, which serves patients across a large semi-rural area, many of whom need health services within easy reach of their homes and families.”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to direct NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board to commit to a full reopening of the hospital to provide health services to benefit the community, and to promptly address fire safety concerns, providing a timeline to reassure residents of when…”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this timely debate and welcome the Minister to his place. I asked local farmers in Ribble Valley what they would like to highlight in this debate about profitability. As hon.”
“I completely agree. The main point I want to make, alongside all the powerful financial and security arguments that have been made, is that we need farming to be financially sustainable because we want it to be sustainable. We want it to be part of what we prioritise as this country.”
“We need companies that have drive and that, with Government support and further investment in enabling infrastructure, could do 10 times what they are currently doing for our economy. As a Labour Government, we are great at helping people who are struggling and who do not have the opportunities they deserve.”
The complete record
Every one of 229 lines we hold for Maya Ellis, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 1 of 5.
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to direct NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board to commit to a full reopening of the hospital to provide health services to benefit the community, and to promptly address fire safety concerns, providing a timeline to reassure residents of when to expect a resolution to their concerns. And the petitioners remain, etc.] [P003217]”
“The petition states: “The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to direct NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board to commit to a full reopening of the hospital to provide health services to benefit the community, and to promptly address fire safety concerns, providing a timeline to reassure residents of when to expect a resolution to their concerns.” Following is the full text of the petition: [The petition of residents of the constituency of Ribble Valley, Declares that Longridge Community Hospital serves patients in a wide geographical rural and semi-rural area, many of whom need health services within easy reach of their homes, but its inpatient services were temporarily closed in November 2025, with beds relocated to Chorley Hospital in December; and further declares that this temporary relocation has placed strain on many residents and left people fearful of the future of health services in the Longridge area.”
“I am proud to present this petition on behalf of residents in Longridge in my constituency of Ribble Valley regarding the future of Longridge community hospital, which serves patients across a large semi-rural area, many of whom need health services within easy reach of their homes and families. The petitioners, and those who signed two similar petitions—combined they have over 3,000 signatures—are calling on Lancashire and South Cumbria integrated care board to improve the consistency of its communications and protect the long-term provision of services at Longridge community hospital.”
“We value our local farm cheese brands, we value our rolling green hills, and we value the role farmers play in maintaining our walkways and gritting our paths in winter.”
“I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) for securing this timely debate and welcome the Minister to his place. I asked local farmers in Ribble Valley what they would like to highlight in this debate about profitability. As hon. Members would expect, the responses included the increasing tax on fertiliser, energy prices, the short-sighted farming vision, the public’s understanding of where our food comes from and its value and quality, seasonal staff and many other things, so I am really grateful that the Government today outlined their farming vision to 2050. In the interests of time, I want to highlight a broader question about who we what to be as British society. We could choose just to import most of our food, but to me, farming is core to our Britishness.”
“I completely agree. The main point I want to make, alongside all the powerful financial and security arguments that have been made, is that we need farming to be financially sustainable because we want it to be sustainable. We want it to be part of what we prioritise as this country. A More In Common poll found that, after the NHS, our British countryside is what British people value most about this country, so please, let’s not take it for granted. With no farmers, the countryside is not sustainable either.”
“I think it is fair to say that this Government are pretty convinced by agglomeration economics and by the idea that if we invest in city regions, the wealth will trickle out. But what happens somewhere like Lancashire, where there is already wealth but it has been supported consistently for decades by EU funding and then by the crisis and resilience fund and the shared prosperity fund, all of which have now been removed? It feels shortsighted to pull the rug from under Lancashire’s thriving economy in the hope that some wealth might trickle out from surrounding city regions in 20 years or so.”
“We need companies that have drive and that, with Government support and further investment in enabling infrastructure, could do 10 times what they are currently doing for our economy. As a Labour Government, we are great at helping people who are struggling and who do not have the opportunities they deserve. I am grateful for the millions this Government are investing into Lancashire through Pride in Place projects, which will absolutely improve health and wellbeing—something we have particular need for in our county, where poor health accounts for a significant portion of the productivity gap. But, as a Labour Government, I think we could be more honest with ourselves that while overcoming deprivation is a top priority, growth is a top priority too. We could also be better at recognising where those growth opportunities are.”
“I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Government support for private investment in Lancashire this evening. Lancashire is my home. It is also the home of some of the most powerful innovators that we have in this country. Often, they fly under the radar of both Government and private investors. In many ways, that is because they do not need us. They already have exceptional trade links and supply chains within their own sectors—decades-old business models in multi-generational companies that just work—so they crack on, quietly making money for this country and prosperity for themselves. In some ways, they do not need our help when they have figured it out for themselves for so long, but we need them.”
“Lancashire is a £40 billion GVA powerhouse. That makes us the 5th largest economy in the north. As the Minister knows, the current growth narrative for the north is often dominated by our major metropolitan neighbours. While we celebrate their success, any true growth narrative for the north must take non-metropolitan areas into account. At this point, let me be clear: “non-metropolitan” does not mean rural. There is a serious risk of people in Westminster making that mistake.”
“I absolutely agree. As I will come on to, it is about ensuring that we make the most of all areas of our country. Some of those areas already have growth, and we need to ensure that we are expanding the growth that is already there. Without a proper holistic look at how the Government can support businesses in Lancashire, not only will businesses struggle, but our UK economy will struggle more when we miss out on the huge potential for growth. I could stand here all night waxing lyrical about how wonderful Lancashire is—our hills, our grand town halls, our coastline, our grit—but I know none of those things speak the language of the Treasury, Government and growth, so I will focus on the numbers and the examples of how the Government have a growth opportunity in Lancashire that they need to not miss.”
“Despite our high-value production base, we rank in the bottom quarter for average Innovate UK grant size, for example. These grants are increasingly concentrated in areas with strong knowledge-intensive business services, rather than production-oriented economies such as Lancashire’s. We must be honest about what Lancashire is missing out on because we lack mayoral arrangements, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster) highlighted. Currently, we are excluded from 30-year investment funds estimated to be worth £30 million per year for our county. We are also missing out on the collective £200 million per year available to new mayoral areas and the city region sustainable transport settlements that our neighbours in Greater Manchester and Liverpool enjoy.”
“We face the same challenges—some of the highest levels of deprivation and worklessness in our urban pockets—yet we also have areas that rank in the top five of northern local authorities for productivity. We are not just waiting for growth; we have an economic base that matches any of our neighbours, where strengths in defence, energy and advanced engineering add unique productive potential to the north as a whole. The private sector in Lancashire is ready to lead. We have a dynamic project pipeline with the potential to attract over £20 billion in additional investment over the next decade. However, we are currently fighting with one hand tied behind our back. The macroeconomic data tells a sobering story: since 1998, Lancashire has experienced the lowest growth in investment spending of any UK region.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As I will come on to, the people and places in counties such as Lancashire deserve that kind of funding. Even if the politicians who have been making the decisions have maybe delayed those opportunities to get devolution, we should not penalise the people there for that. Lancashire is a prime example of a polycentric economy. We have coastal and rural environments, but also urban environments from city centres to market towns, with many of the same issues and opportunities as our metropolitan neighbours. We are a county of 1.57 million people and over 55,000 businesses, contributing a massive portion of the north’s economic output.”
“I am making it one of my missions to coax more of them up to Lancashire to see what is on offer, but I ask the Minister not to let this Government fall into the same bad habit of sticking to what we know, even though there is clearly such growth potential in Lancashire.”
“The disparities are reflected in our venture capital and equity investment volumes, which trail significantly behind Greater Manchester. In the first quarter of 2024, Greater Manchester reached approximately £104 million in investment, while Lancashire secured just £7 million. That innovation gap is not due to a lack of ingenuity; it is a lack of investment that acts as a direct drag on our wider commercial performance. When I speak to private investors—both those investing in small companies and those investing in big infrastructure —they often sheepishly tell me they know they should probably be doing more in Lancashire, but that they are creatures of habit.”
“I completely agree. As many of my constituents regularly tell me, the congestion we get when the M6 fails or has a closure is a nightmare when it falls on to the A-roads around the constituency, so a second bridge around Preston to create a ring road is critical. Staying with the subject of transport, my hon. Friends the Members for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) and for Pendle and Clitheroe (Jonathan Hinder) are having to fight relentlessly for better connectivity in their constituencies, which is where devolution could really help us. The Government may say that Lancashire did not come to the table when the offer was first there for devolution, but that is not the fault of Lancashire’s places and people, so it does not seem fair that they should suffer. Lancashire leaders are at the table now, so let us crack on.”
“I came back to Lancashire, and I will likely be there forever, because I see not only the potential, but a way of doing growth better—of businesses grounded in community, with care for the environment in which we are lucky to work and live and with a quiet relentlessness to thrive. Our businesses lead with humility; they understand risk and reward, and that is what makes them stronger. Those are Labour values, and it should be this Labour Government who help those values and those businesses to thrive. I look forward to the Minister’s response.”
“Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr Foster), will the Government scope the return on investment of a second bridge across the River Ribble, west of Preston, to create a ring road around Preston and unlock the increasing gridlock in our rapidly growing county? Finally, will the Government commit to regular engagement with Lancashire MPs through the all-party parliamentary group on Lancashire, which I chair, to ensure that Ministers fully understand the opportunities for Lancashire to make a significant contribution to the UK economy? I am a red rose through and through in both party and county.”
“Thirdly, will the Government confirm funds to Westinghouse for next-generation nuclear fuel capabilities? Westinghouse at Springfields is the supplier of choice to fuel the UK’s independent nuclear deterrent platform. Fourthly, will the Government progress the office relocation requirements of His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs as an anchor tenant to bring forward a new office quarter around Preston station? Fifthly, will the Government fast-track our move toward a mayoral combined authority with a commitment in the spring spending review for an interim settlement, similar to other areas, that allows Lancashire to pull its weight—as it clearly can—alongside its northern neighbours? I am nearly finished. Sixthly, echoing the comments of my hon.”
“While my primary aim today is to put Lancashire back at the heart of Government thinking in general, I also have, as Members would imagine, some specific asks of the Government. First, will the Government confirm funding for the permanent home of the National Cyber Force at Samlesbury in my constituency via the defence investment plan? This £5 billion commitment by the previous Government needs continued engagement from Ministers. Secondly, will the Government continue their investment in the National Cyber Force ecosystem, including investment in the Blackburn cyber and skills campus, to ensure that my constituents get the skills to work at the National Cyber Force and that we do not just bring people in from elsewhere in the country?”
“I hope that the Ministers in the Departments for Business and Trade and for Culture, Media and Sport speak regularly about the impact cultural investment like that can have on attracting talent and growth, and I hope that they will support Blog Preston’s campaign to reopen the venue. The county has quick wins and immediate opportunities in defence, energy and advanced manufacturing that simply do not exist elsewhere in the north. There are pipeline investments from Government that, if pushed through quickly, could provide a win-win-win by stimulating local economic growth, supporting the UK to retain key sovereign capabilities and driving national growth—the most important mission for our Labour Government.”
“Our ability to work with such small and medium-sized enterprises is currently heavily constrained by the loss of local economic development funds, but the Lancashire county combined authority has the potential to drive key pilot activity based on our leadership in the mid-tier business council. When it comes to growth, we know from our city region neighbours that it was the investment in culture and night-time economy that attracted the young talent needed for innovation to really thrive. The Guild Hall in Preston was a key entertainment venue for the whole of Lancashire but closed in 2019 due to reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and will take over £60 million to rebuild.”
“Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) is meeting the Minister soon to discuss the initiative, and we would welcome some initial thoughts today on potential support for future funding. Beyond the big names, we must support our foundational economy. In Lancashire, family-owned, mid-tier businesses are the key to the supply chains that drive our most vital sectors. They have the potential to scale, to bring new innovation and to distribute growth across our entire economic base. KeTech, in my constituency, is an established software and data SME that powers 80% of the UK’s train data, but has struggled with winning UK contracts over foreign competitors.”
“Fhunded has become a cornerstone of our early-stage finance community, acting as a curated bridge that brings our brightest founders and most ambitious funders together. Its impact is undeniable. The vast majority of equity raised in Lancashire throughout 2024 was generated through connections made via the Fhunded initiative. It serves as a perfect case study for this debate: a local government-funded catalyst that is successfully mobilising private capital and ensuring our high-potential start-ups can thrive right there in Lancashire. Another brilliant publicly funded initiative is the RedCAT Catapult run by East Lancashire Chamber of Commerce. It has exceeded targets set by the previous Government on return on investment, supporting businesses in the low carbon technology and advanced manufacturing sectors. My hon.”
“That means that a tech professional’s take-home pay goes significantly further in Preston or Blackburn than in London or even Manchester. We are a magnet for the next generation of start-ups, already producing 16 academic spin-outs from our universities that have raised £36 million in equity this year. I will take a moment to highlight a couple of specific initiatives that exemplify our county’s proactive approach to investment. Fhunded is a project close to my heart, as I had the privilege of working directly on its development during my time at Lancashire county council, prior to my election to this place. I want to give a huge thanks to my former colleagues at LCC, especially Dan Knowles and Rory Southworth, who have nurtured this initiative into the vital economic engine it is today.”
“I completely agree with my hon. Friend. As much as the debate is about Lancashire, one thing that will underpin change for both our counties is a commitment to devolution and to towns, so that the focus is not just on our cities. We know what works. Our enterprise zones at Samlesbury and Warton have already helped to deliver a cumulative £1.2 billion in private investment. In the wider north-west, private capital already supports 873 businesses. We have world-class assets, from BAE Systems, which supports 20,000 jobs in the north-west and partners with 1,400 UK suppliers, to our nuclear renaissance, anchored by Springfields, Westinghouse and Heysham. The data is firmly on our side. Lancashire offers a cost-effectiveness ratio of 1:80 for tech talent.”
“The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to direct the Environment Agency to commit to an independent review of the Victoria Road design in the Preston and South Ribble Flood Risk Management Scheme, and to provide flood defences that are environmentally responsible, respect local heritage and reduce community disruption. And the petitioners remain, etc. ] [P003206]”
“Following is the full text of the petition: [ The petition of residents of the constituency of Ribble Valley, Declares that the Royal Lime Trees on Victoria Road, Walton-le-Dale, Preston, which have stood for over 112 years and serve as a living memorial to the coronation of King George V and Queen Mary, form part of the community’s identity and landscape but the Environment Agency’s current plans within the Preston Flood Alleviation Scheme would see 18 trees cut down; further declares that specific modelling has not been carried out and appropriate steps not taken to gather sufficient structural or geotechnical evidence for these plans; and further declares that the current plans are intrusive on the community and natural landscape, while less disruptive alternatives have not been adequately explored.”
“I am delighted to present this petition on behalf of Walton-le-Dale residents in my constituency regarding the potential felling of the 18 royal lime trees that have stood for 112 years. In this petition, and in a similar, separate e-petition with almost 8,000 signatures, the petitioners believe that the Environment Agency has not sufficiently factored in local heritage in its preferred flooding solutions.”
“A few weeks ago, 12-year-old Junior Slater tragically drowned in the River Ribble in the heart of my constituency. We will cover many things to prevent such senseless losses in this debate, but what struck me most in the village on the day that it happened was the hundreds of young people who were there from surrounding towns looking for something nice to do on a sunny day. Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to prevent tragic deaths such as Junior’s, we need to ensure that there is also funding for places where young people can go and enjoy the outdoors safely, and will he join me in sending best wishes to the Slater family ahead of Junior’s funeral this Thursday?”
“She particularly highlighted the failure to properly consider childcare, domestic abuse victims, and pregnant women. The result was that many women faced pregnancy, birth and the post-natal period alone. That will have impacts for generations. If we are truly to be prepared for future national emergencies we must ensure that parents, babies and pregnant women are built into planning from the outset, rather than being treated as an afterthought.”
“We currently have a maternity inquiry addressing the fact that two thirds of maternity units are deemed unsafe in normal times, yet one of the clearest lessons from the covid-19 pandemic is how easily mothers and pregnant women can be overlooked even more when decisions are made at pace. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on babies (pregnancy to age 2), I am aware of how often babies and their parents are left out of policymaking, yet they absorb so much of the impact of keeping going in a crisis. Analysis of meetings of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies during the covid-19 crisis showed that gender was largely absent from key discussions. Helen MacNamara, a senior official at the time, later acknowledged that the lack of a female perspective “led to significant negative consequences”.”
“It is brilliant to see an example in the interim report of a young woman who taught herself Shopify in order to start a business. This Government have prioritised growth, which comes from innovation and entrepreneurship. Given that young people have incredible ideas and often thrive when they can direct their own destiny, rather than adapting to another company’s culture, does he agree that encouraging entrepreneurship among young people needs to be a significant part of the solution?”
“If we get that right, outcomes will improve, costs will fall, trust will return, and maternity care in this country can once again be something that we are all proud of.”
“Will they commit to resourcing continuity of carer models, rather than quietly shelving them when staffing pressures bite? Will they address the £27 billion maternity negligence bill not through litigation management, but through prevention? This Government must decide whether they want to preside over a system that simply manages failure, or whether they are willing to take the brave step of long-term investment to make the UK a place where women’s choices and bodily autonomy are respected, where safety is paramount, where joy and empowerment are not incidental but expected, and where professionals are supported to deliver humane, relationship-based care. We do not need another review, and I am not sure that we really need another title. We need staff, time, continuity, trust and investment.”
“The question before us is not whether the Government recognise that maternity services are under strain—that has already been well established. The question is whether Ministers are prepared to act at the scale required. A maternity commissioner may feel tangible and responsive, but it does not avoid the hard truth: women’s experiences will not change without investment, workforce stability and systematic redesign. As other colleagues have said, there are over 700 recommendations on maternity safety already in existence. If the Government are serious about restoring confidence in maternity services, I ask Ministers: will they publish a fully funded workforce plan for maternity, including midwifery, retention and return to practice?”
“Continuity of midwifery care is recommended by both the World Health Organisation and NICE, and it is associated with fewer pre-term births, lower rates of loss and significantly higher satisfaction from families. Randomised control trials show that those benefits apply to women at both lower and higher risk. Despite a national commitment to rolling out a continuity of carer model, progress stalled because there were not enough staff to deliver it safely. In 2022, NHS England formally removed the target date, citing “insufficient staffing”. Many qualified midwives have left the profession, but evidence suggests that a significant number would return if they were able to provide relationship-based, compassionate care, with time to do their jobs properly. Let me conclude by speaking directly to Ministers.”
“If this debate becomes another iteration of that same binary, we risk repeating the very mistakes that brought us here. While I welcome the clear passion behind the ask for a maternity commissioner, I worry that it would not capture the nuance of opinion and experience in the birthing space. There is so much more that I would love to say about how brilliant and resilient midwives are; about how brave every person who experiences and supports someone through childbirth is, even when we are expected to just crack on and deal with it; and about how great it is that our new women’s health strategy focuses on the importance of women being listened to. However, in the interest of time, I will finally focus on what we need from this Government. If we are serious about improving outcomes, we already know where to look.”
“That false binary still shapes decision making today, and it contributes to women feeling that birth is something done to them, rather than by them. If we continue talking in this way, I fear that we are making women’s bodies a political football. I believe that we and this Government are capable of better. I have heard directly from senior clinicians that rising intervention rates are linked to older mothers or decreasing health standards, yet the data does not back that up. The average age of a birthing mother has risen by less than a year since 2014, and the percentage of women giving birth over 35 went up from 23% to just 25%. That small increase cannot explain a 45% increase in interventions over the same period. We have to move away from anecdote and ensure that we are using the data.”
“The report described a “seriously dysfunctional” service, which was “influenced by a small number of dominant individuals”, where poor leadership, weak clinical skills and failures in basic risk assessment created a “lethal mix”. The problem was not support for physiological birth; it was unsafe practice and toxic culture. However, over time, that nuance has been lost. Supporting physiological birth became conflated with recklessness. Midwifery philosophy was portrayed as being in opposition to safety, rather than working in partnership with it, as professional standards make very clear. The result has been a false binary in policy-thinking—safety versus choice, intervention versus physiology, or risk management versus women’s autonomy.”
“I have had some beautifully powerful discussions with my colleagues over the past few months on the topic of giving birth. Some of them have felt looked down on for having a C-section, and some, like myself, have felt looked down on for wanting a home birth. The fact is that all those choices are completely valid. The problem is not someone’s birth choice; it is anyone judging them for it. On that point, I want to gently address an elephant in the room. The concept that midwives have sought “the pursuit of normal birth at any cost” entered public policy following the Morecambe Bay investigation in 2015. It was never intended as a literal description of all midwifery practice, yet it became a powerful and damaging shorthand.”
“I will therefore focus my comments today on women themselves, because how women experience birth is not a “nice to have”; it has profound consequences for mental health, family wellbeing and long-term outcomes. Around one in four women experiences perinatal mental health problems, costing the UK £8.1 billion annually when left untreated. That is true no matter what a birth is like. I would like to put my hand up today and say that I am a bit fed up with people rolling their eyes at the concept of a birth plan, for example. Of course women know that things might not happen exactly as they had hoped; a woman’s birth plan is about being prepared for all eventualities, expressing her wishes and being empowered. Anyone who suggests otherwise is undermining the right of women to feel in control and prepared for this huge change in their lives.”
“However, I fear that maternity care may be too complex, too nuanced and too diverse to be well served by a single national maternity commissioner, and that focusing our energy on that risks allowing the Government to tick a box, when what would make the greatest difference is sustained, courageous investment in maternity services themselves, as many of my colleagues have highlighted. Much of the current maternity debate understandably centres on trauma, risk and dissatisfaction. Those things matter, and I know others today have focused, and will focus, on how we reduce that. But when those become the only things we measure, we distort the entire system.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for introducing this debate. A huge thank you to Louise Thompson, Theo Clarke and the 150,000 people who signed this petition, for keeping maternity services on the agenda. The petition before us is motivated by a very real and deeply painful issue: the loss of trust in maternity services following preventable harm and trauma. I welcome the passion behind this petition.”
“On Wednesday, I joined midwifery students protesting in Parliament Square. I spoke to Kelly McDermott, who is facing the reality that 31% of newly qualified midwives cannot find jobs, which the Royal College of Midwives puts down to poor workforce planning. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending the incredible care that midwives give women? Will he also join me in calling on the Health Secretary to ensure that this Government will finally provide the step change in investment that our maternity services desperately need?”
“How will the Secretary of State ensure that, while we rightly support those most in need, we also provide all young people with third spaces for ideas and creativity?”
“I welcome the universal approach of our new youth strategy, but in my Ribble Valley constituency, in which communities are small and often far away from city-centre youth hubs, young people miss out on support. Their family may be just about managing, but dual-career households and long hours leave little time to take children to activities. This country has an inequality problem, but it also has a productivity problem. I have had welcome conversations with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions on how we can unlock real entrepreneurship, ambition and opportunity for young people, in order not only to reduce unemployment rates but to unlock and capitalise on the incredible energy and ideas of our young people.”
“I recently visited the Lancaster University School of Mathematics, which is based in Preston on the edge of my constituency, a brilliant new place for 16 to 18-year-olds to take A-levels in maths and maths-based subjects. In a world where we desperately need more maths and technical skills, it was truly a joy to hear that students who had previously felt unsupported in their passion for maths now had a place where they could thrive. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging my young constituents to consider this brilliant choice now on their doorstep, and will he consider a debate on how the culture of our educational settings is crucial to enabling the creative and entrepreneurial learning we need for growth in this country?”
“Does my hon. Friend agree that parents of men and boys are navigating a truly wild west? Although it is brilliant that the Government are committed to helping teachers to spot and navigate misogyny in schools, the fact is that parents are the ones at the coalface, especially in the early years. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking those parents who work really hard every day to raise kind, confident and compassionate boys who we are very proud of?”