YouSaid · the spoken record
Laura Trott
On the record 2022–2026
hansard
This is everything the corpus holds for Laura Trott. It is not everything they have said on the record.
Every line below is reproduced as it was said and credited to the record it came from, and links to that record wherever it can be linked. Nothing here is summarised or generated. Directory · Search · Corrections
“It was intended that needs would be identified earlier, but Ofsted’s SEND inspection found that many local authorities struggled to implement the changes properly, which led to the huge postcode lottery we have seen. Layered on that has been the explosion of numbers post covid. Many children with complex needs did not attend school during covid and missed the support at school, Ofsted found, which has led to some of the distressing cases we have heard about today. In government we increased the high needs budget by more than 60% from 2019 to 2024, but we are still seeing these huge issues. There is something that I would be interested to know from the Minister. The previous Government pledged the improvement plan for SEND.”
House of Commons22 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Obviously covid has had a huge influence, but the problems we are discussing are not new. In 2009, in the final report of his inquiry, Brian Lamb called for a “radical overhaul” of the SEND system. He cited a culture of low expectation and a system that failed to deliver what children needed. The coalition Government, who have been referred to by a couple of Members, brought forward the Children and Families Act in 2014, which tried to address some of the shortcomings. It included changes that I think most Members would agree with, such as bringing together the education and health system, trying to make it more child-focused and getting parents to have more of a role in decision making.”
House of Commons22 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship as ever, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this debate and on her excellent speech. It is obvious from everybody who has spoken how much distress the delay in EHCPs is causing across the system. What is equally striking is the postcode lottery. We know that 15 local authorities completed less than 10% of their new EHCPs within the 20-week time limit, while 27 local authorities completed over 90% within 20 weeks. That is a stark difference, which I have not seen properly explained anywhere. I hope that as part of the work the Minister is doing in the Department there is some analysis of why the differences are so big. They cannot be explained away just by volume.”
House of Commons22 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have questions about the statutory override, which were raised by the Lib Dem Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). I would be grateful if the Minister responded on that as well. I am conscious of time—”
House of Commons22 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While it is always right and proper, if parents want to send their child to a mainstream school, to give them the opportunity to do that and there should be the facilities there for that to take place, parents should also have the option of a special school if that is what they prefer. We have heard a lot about mainstream schooling; I completely understand that and I support it where it is the parents’ wish. But can the Minister confirm that the Government support special school places and will increase their number if that is the parents’ wish? Some groups are concerned about being forced in one direction rather than the other, but I think choice needs to be at the heart of this system, so I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that today.”
House of Commons22 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I acknowledge absolutely that pay was part of that, but it was also about terms and conditions and flexibility, which I do not think we have seen adequately addressed to date. I am grateful for the engagement on these issues from the hon. Member and the Minister. It is really important that we get this right, because we will need extra flexibility as we go through with the reforms that the Government will, I hope, be bringing forward. The hon. Member for Chelmsford discussed the Minister’s approach to mainstream education and the recognition that mainstream education is not right for every child.”
House of Commons22 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I was about to wrap up because I am conscious of time and I want to ensure that the hon. Member for Chelmsford has time to speak at the end of the debate, so I will close my remarks there.”
House of Commons22 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It was always obvious that the Education Secretary made a mistake in pausing the Act, but rather than commencing a little more of the Act to try to cover up the mistaken delay, she needs to get up and perform the U-turn in full. The Act contains much-needed protections and she must not abolish them just because they came from the Conservative side of the House. Finally, while we are at it, the Secretary of State should perform a U-turn on academy freedoms too. The Government must not take six months to realise their mistake on that one.”
House of Commons15 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Despite the Secretary of State’s statement, we now have confusion about what is actually happening. It seems that the Government cannot even do a much-needed U-turn properly. Without the tort, what consequences will universities face if they do not protect free speech? Why is the Secretary of State unable to set out a clear decision on overseas funding? Why is six months not enough time? Can she spell out the changes the Government are thinking about making to the overseas funding measure? Can she confirm that none of those were discussed during the Chancellor’s recent visit to China? Can she confirm that there were no deals done to amend that section? That is very important. It is extremely poor timing at best and invidious at worst to consider changes to the overseas funding element of the Act so soon after that trip to China.”
House of Commons15 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Secretary of State now apologise to those who have suffered because of her inaction? We have upcoming legal action in the judicial review brought by the Free Speech Union against the Government’s decision. Considering that a concern about expense was one of the reasons given by the Government to justify their decision, how much has that litigation cost to defend? What is the financial cost of the Secretary of State’s inaction? How much taxpayer money has been spent on a partisan play-up-to-your-own-gallery move that is about to fall flat of its face in the court? Did the Secretary of State receive legal advice before she made her decision to suspend the Act? Will she release it, so that Members can see the basis on which she acted? If she did not, how can she possibly claim to have acted responsibly in this matter?”
House of Commons15 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I pay tribute to the academics who led that fightback outside Parliament. Much like they have done with academies in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, this Government take a wrecking ball to policy without a thought for the consequences. They are much more interested in virtue signalling than in what is right for the country, more interested in listening to student union advisers than to women hounded out of their jobs. Since the Secretary of State decided to pause the legislation, gender-critical women, among others, have, in the process of vindicating their rights, racked up enormous legal fees that have caused some to remortgage their houses. Professor Jo Phoenix said publicly that if the Act had been enforced, it would have saved her from that very ordeal.”
House of Commons15 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It should have been clear again, when more than 650 academics signed a letter to The Times decrying the decision, that pausing the Act was a mistake, but the Secretary of State still did not budge from her position. It should have been undeniable that the Government had made the wrong choice when, acting together, no less than seven Nobel prize winners and a Fields medallist later added their names to that letter, but still Labour was happy to roll out the old tropes about hate speech. Literary luminaries like Sir Stephen Fry, Tom Holland and Ian McEwan were forced to intervene. Those with natural sympathies for the Secretary of State’s own political positions were compelled to tell her that she was wrong. It is only now, after all that humiliation, that she has finally changed her footing.”
House of Commons15 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by Parliament prior to the election. By the end of the Act’s passage through both Houses, the Labour party had agreed in principle with the need for it; indeed, there are positive signals coming from those on the Front Bench today. However, immediately after the election, Government sources said the Act was a Tory “hate speech charter”, and paused its implementation. I ask the Secretary of State: what has changed? Does she still stand by her characterisation of the Act? It should have been obvious straightaway to anyone with even a basic sympathy for the norms of liberal education that pausing the Act was a mistake.”
House of Commons15 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I see before me a move away from all the things that have enabled that success. The Bill seeks to turn its back on Labour’s history and take back those academy freedoms on curriculum, on pay and on behaviour. You name it, they are reversing it—all the things that have done so much to improve our education system. Step by step, the very policies that saw our schools rise up the international league tables are being reversed. I guarantee that just as we went up, as a result of the Bill we will come down those very same rankings. And who will suffer? The poorest pupils in society.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I desperately hope that Government Members will come to see that. Madam Deputy Speaker, you would think that a Labour Government would feel proud of the record they had on education under Blair. It was that Labour Government who innovated and made way for academies. When Blair talks about academies, he says that an academy “belongs not to some remote bureaucracy, not to the rulers of government, local or national, but to itself, for itself. The school is in charge of its own destiny.” That Blairite principle—a school in charge of its own destiny—was built on and expanded by subsequent Conservative Governments. What has been the result of this largely cross-party consensus? A thriving education system in which English children have soared up the programme for international student assessment rankings.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“While the Opposition will seek to amend various aspects of what is being put forward in Committee, we do see value in it. But the other half of the Bill is the policy equivalent of a wrecking ball. It is an all-out assault on teachers, the education system and standards. It is nothing less than education vandalism and we will oppose it with every fibre of our beings. The House must be in no doubt that the Bill really matters. It destroys the consensus built over two decades in England on how to improve schools—a consensus that has led to English children being the best in the western world at reading and maths. I cannot understand why the Government would seek to reverse that progress. What are they hoping to achieve? It seems to be policy built purely on ideology. More than that, it is wrong.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding, declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay and conditions, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing including establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.” The Bill in front of us today is a Bill of two halves, one of which seeks to protect children and improve safeguarding and support for children in care.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Lady, but she will know that the academy programme was expanded more than 50 times under the last Government, and we went up the education rankings, not down, under the previous Government. The Bill would abolish academies in all but name, and for what? Because Education Ministers think that they know better than Katharine Birbalsingh and Sir Jon Coles. Blair said in 2005 that “command public services today are no more acceptable than a command economy.” Well, someone needs to tell the Education Secretary, because that is exactly what she is proposing in the Bill. It is anti-rigour, anti-choice and anti-accountability.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Why on earth are they putting this into a Bill without a clear alternative failure regime in place that evidence shows is at least as good? The Bill is totally unacceptable and misunderstands why the academy order has been so important. I cannot say this strongly enough to the Government Benches: it needs to change.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“They mention “regional improvement for standards and excellence (‘RISE’) teams”— officials sitting in the Department for Education—but in another breath they said that those teams will not be involved in failing schools. The Government have clearly totally failed; they do not understand that the reason that failing schools became academies by default is that it is the most effective intervention. If it is not mandatory, there will be lots of massive rows about what will happen to failing schools, and inevitable delays and legal challenges. What is the upshot? More time with children in failing schools not being dealt with. What is their plan for failing schools? What is their plan to protect those children from falling behind? What is the evidence that this approach is better? Have they trialled it anywhere?”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The explanatory notes to the Bill set a new standard in double speak when they praise the “positive innovation and good practice in teachers’ pay and conditions in some academies” and say that the Government want to “ensure that local authority-maintained schools also have the opportunity to implement this”. So what are they doing? Are they giving these same pay flexibilities to local authority schools? They are doing opposite. They are taking pay flexibilities away from academies. Do not try and make any sense of this, because it is impossible. It is entirely contradictory. The Government are also removing the requirement for failing schools to be taken over by an academy, despite recognising the “strong track record of multi academy trusts…turning around failing schools”. What are they replacing it with?”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be clear, the Bill proposes a pay cut for nearly 20,000 teachers in future years, because it imposes national terms and conditions on teachers in academies. I have to ask: what problem are the Government trying to solve? Teachers outside of national pay scales are paid more, not less. What have they got against highly paid teachers? Why on earth are the Government coming here today and telling tens of thousands of teachers that their pay is too high? It is absurd. Levelling down seems to be this Government’s priority. The flexibilities given on terms and conditions allow academies to offer things such as a longer school day. Are the Labour Government proposing to ban that?”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am glad that the hon. Lady has confirmed that the Labour party is, indeed, anti-academy. The Bill goes on and on—rampant centralisation in search of a cause. Why are the Government making all schools follow the national curriculum? Where is the evidence that there is a problem? Why are they putting in place sweeping powers to direct academies on unspecified things? What possible justification do they have for that? The notes say that it is to prevent “unreasonable use of power”. I say, look in the mirror.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“That is an excellent education system, but one that aims solely for consistency is not—a system of command and control, stifling teachers, supressing innovation, with everything decided in an office in Whitehall, far away from the classrooms. It is same old Labour: consistency for all, excellence for none.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Sadly, I think my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I see no other reason for the academy provisions to be in the Bill. It actually says in the explanatory notes that the primary aim of this legislation is to make the education system “more consistent”. That is at the heart of the problem today, because more consistency does not a better education system make. It is a classic Labour argument: one size must fit all, lopping the tops off the tallest poppies. God forbid that schools might be able to innovate and learn from each other, and teachers might have freedoms in the classroom to try new things, backed up by a regulator that rigorously inspects and identifies failure.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“If it is the latter, the education section of the Bill must go. Let me come to the final part of our amendment, on a national grooming gang inquiry. This debate has been taken too far away from the victims and what is right for them. There are legitimate arguments to be had in this area, but the one I will not accept is that to call for an inquiry is to be far right. The Labour Government have to understand that they must explain their actions, not just call the Opposition names. Local inquiries, which the Labour Government say are the answer, do not have legal powers to summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. Some of the leaders of the Manchester inquiry resigned after they said that they were blocked from accessing information.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The whole point of academies is to drive up standards by freeing them from state control. The Bill undermines all that, which is why it would abolish academies in all but name. I urge Government Members to look at what the education part of the Bill would do. Look at the Labour history under Education Secretaries such Lord Adonis. Do not destroy something that the Labour party helped to build. The Government must get rid of the academy elements of the Bill. They will not improve the school system; they will make it worse. Do not destroy the work and policy of two decades at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. We must ask ourselves: who this is all about? Are we on the side of ideology, unions and bureaucrats, or are we on side of the children and teachers, and making sure that the most disadvantaged get the best possible education?”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I am enormously grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, and I agree completely. This is an enormous scandal, and yet we do not fully know the number of victims or perpetrators, or where it has taken place.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The previous Conservative Government set up the grooming gangs taskforce, which made more than 500 arrests in the first year. With 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone, this will potentially encompass tens of thousands of children. We therefore need a comprehensive national inquiry into grooming gangs to tell the truth.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I have been very clear today that the Bill will destroy the education system in this country and reverse the progress that we have made, and that is why we oppose it. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I condemn the language that has been used against hon. Members in this House. However, he will recall that the Labour party put out a social media graphic that greyed out the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and claimed that he said that paedophiles should not go to prison. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to be moderate in our language. This is an enormous scandal, and yet we do not fully know the number of victims or perpetrators, or where it has taken place.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is no reason that action cannot be taken at the same time as a national inquiry—it is not an either/or. If the Government want to disagree with that, they will have to argue their case on the facts, and not simply smear any opposition to them as far right or say that parliamentary procedure means it cannot happen.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“No, I am going to finish. This is an opportunity for MPs across the House to give victims the justice they deserve. Hon. Members have heard our arguments on the inquiry and on schools. I hope that today, when we vote on our reasoned amendment, the Government see sense on both.”
House of Commons8 January 2025Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Secretary of State has made it clear that she would like more time spent on creative subjects, but she must ensure that does not come at the expense of an academic education. Last week’s international education stats found that English children are the best at maths in the western world. That is brilliant news and testament to the hard work of teachers and pupils. It is also down to a world-class curriculum put in place by the previous Government. Will she finally celebrate those results and instruct her curriculum review that it must not dilute academic standards and put that progress at risk?”
House of Commons9 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“The Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 was passed by Parliament prior to the election. By the end of its passage through both Houses, the Labour party had agreed in principle with the need for the Act. However, just after the election, Government sources said the Act was a Tory “hate speech charter”. Now I read in the papers that the Department may commence the legislation without the tort. Can I ask the Secretary of State to clear up this mess and to tell the House what her plan is for the freedom of speech Act?”
House of Commons9 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Since the Secretary of State decided to pause this legislation, gender-critical women, among others, have racked up enormous legal fees, which have caused some to remortgage their houses. Professor Jo Phoenix has said publicly that if it had been in force, the Act would have saved her that precise ordeal. Inaction has consequences, and this delay is causing harm. Will the Secretary of State accept that, and get on with implementing the legislation?”
House of Commons9 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I hope she can provide an update for us today on Government thinking in this area. As Members will know, the local government financial settlement for next year is looming. I must correct the Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins), on this point. She should look at what happened to local government funding when the Lib Dems were in government and then what happened after they left. It is important to emphasise that the Conservative Government increased the high needs budget by over 60% in 2019-20 to £10.5 billion and put in place a statutory override so that SEND-related deficits did not overwhelm council budgets. With that set to expire in 2026, what is the Secretary of State’s message to local authorities, particularly in rural and county areas, where these pressures are most acute?”
House of Commons3 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Members for Leigh and Atherton (Jo Platt) and for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) identified, the ballooning numbers really are a problem. I will run through the numbers, as they set out the problem we face. Nationally, council spending on SEND transport increased from £728 million in 2019 to £1.4 billion in 2024. It is projected to reach £2.2 billion by 2027-28, an increase of 57%. The average cost per SEND pupil nationally for transport has also risen by 32% between 2018 and 2024, and the number of pupils requiring transport is also growing. Councils transported an average of 1,300 pupils in 2023-24, up from 911 in 2018-19, which is an increase of 43%. I know that the Minister will be thinking about the cause of the demand, as well as what we need to do about it.”
House of Commons3 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“It is pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Mark. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) on securing this important debate and on her very good speech. This subject impacts families up and down the country every day, and I am glad that we have been able to debate it. We have heard about the need for local provision, more specialist schools and a well-funded system, with access to education a common theme. As Members have acknowledged, under the Education Act 1996, local authorities are under a duty to provide free school transport to eligible children. That was intended to mean that no child is prevented from accessing education due to a lack of transportation, a view that I believe is shared by everybody here today. However, demand is growing, and as the hon.”
House of Commons3 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Bicester and Woodstock (Calum Miller) mentioned the need for capital funding. Many Members here will remember the 15 specialist schools pledged in the last Conservative Budget. Can the Minister confirm that those will be going ahead? I am conscious of the time, so this will be my final word. I pledge that we will be a constructive Opposition. I think everyone here today will be clear that we support local provision, support for parents and more capital funding, and we will support that with the Government if they bring it forward.”
House of Commons3 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I want to make sure that there is time for a wrap-up, and we are quite close to the end of the debate, so I will continue, if the hon. Lady does not mind. Is the Secretary of State pushing the Chancellor to extend that protection or for deficits to be written off? How are the Government supporting local authorities to explore innovative solutions, such as shared transport services or alternative models, to help to manage rising SEND transport costs more effectively? Can the Minister also update us on what the total cost will be to local government of the national insurance contributions increase announced in the Budget? What is the cost of the national insurance increase specifically for home-to-school transport? Will local authorities be fully compensated for those costs? The hon.”
House of Commons3 December 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“When can we expect the Bill creating that to be introduced? I want the Government to succeed in this area. Children’s social care is a hidden issue, and getting it right is at the heart of solving so many problems that this country faces. I hope the Secretary of State can reassure me and the House that she will do more to bring forward a greater supply of places for looked-after children, and that an early intervention system is forthcoming, because the futures of looked-after children rely on it.”
House of Commons18 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“She said that she wants to scrap payment by results. Given that that is an early intervention programme, on the basis of what evidence is she doing so? Does she have an evaluation of what scrapping payment by results will do? We welcome much else in the statement, including the regional care co-operatives, multi-agency teams, and the enhanced role of Ofsted in the sector. On the latter, is the Secretary of State making any changes to the failure regime for children’s homes and the regularity of inspection? The Children’s Commissioner has done outstanding work on the increasing use of deprivation of liberty orders. Will the Secretary of State outline what action she is taking on that important issue? I am pleased to see the Labour Government take forward our proposal for a unique child identifier.”
House of Commons18 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), commissioned by the Conservatives in government, found that profit caps would not work as it would be “relatively easy for providers to reallocate income and expenditure to maintain profit levels.” Does the Secretary of State agree? Is the 8.8% level of profit that she referred to this morning the maximum level of profit that she is aiming for? If not, what will it be? The capacity problem rests both on the availability of places and on the demand for those places. The Secretary of State has indicated that she would like to take steps on early intervention, which is obviously vital. Those were not specified in her statement, but I hope that she will bring them to the House at the earliest opportunity, as they are critical to solving the issue.”
House of Commons18 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I note that in the most recent Budget, despite the welcome money for kinship care, there was no more money for increasing the number of places for looked-after children. That is essential; otherwise, the strategy on places set out today simply will not work. What plans has the Secretary of State made to increase the number of places for looked-after children? How much she will need to fund that? Did she ask the Treasury for the money at the most recent Budget? What is her assessment of the impact of the changes announced today on the number of places available for looked-after children? The review carried out by the hon.”
House of Commons18 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“In its 2022 report, the Competition and Markets Authority did not recommend a profit cap, because “the central problem facing the market…is…lack of…capacity.” The CMA concluded that taking measures to limit the profitability of providers would “risk increasing the capacity shortfall.” While I share the Secretary of State’s desire to ensure that we are getting best value for the taxpayer in this sector, we need to solve the capacity issue first; otherwise, ironically, she risks driving up prices and exacerbating the shortage of places. The last Government took steps at the Budget in April to address the capacity side, with £165 million allocated for building and maintaining placements for looked-after children.”
House of Commons18 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. I welcome the Government’s focus today on children’s social care, and on the profiteering issues that we identified and set up the market intervention advisory group to look at when we were in government. However, at the heart of the problem is a lack of high-quality places for looked-after children. That is what is causing the high cost of placements, as demand is outstripping supply.”
House of Commons18 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will support the Government if they seek to drive up apprenticeship starts and improve vocational education, and we will work as hard as we can with them on improving the current absence rates, because we know they are hitting disadvantaged children.”
House of Commons13 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“Will the Minister please confirm today that the increased costs from employers’ national insurance contributions will be taken into account by the Government in the funding formula? Otherwise, we are going to have a real crisis with provision. The Minister needs to recognise that and take it away if she cannot answer now. More broadly, this has been a helpful and interesting debate. Education is an area where we need to work together to make progress for disadvantaged children. I say to all Labour Members that the Conservatives will drive that forward by insisting on high academic standards and the rigorous holding to account of schools for their performance, and by ensuring that the curriculum is knowledge based and drives children forward.”
House of Commons13 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“I very much echo the comments from the hon. Member for Twickenham about the importance of early years. I will quibble with her about the funding that has gone into early years, which obviously increased massively under the last Government, but we have a real problem now with early years funding. The national insurance contributions change will have a significant impact on the sector. It will means that, in contrast to what the Prime Minister said today, costs for parents will go up. Also, childcare provision has had no guarantees that the Government’s funding formula will include provision for the increased cost from NICs. Obviously, under the previous Government we set it up so that the minimum wage increases will be taken into account.”
House of Commons13 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗
“We will very much support the register, which I believe is going to be in that Bill, but when will that Bill be brought forward and how does the Minister intend to make it work? The speeches made about young carers by the hon. Members for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) were very moving and absolutely right, and I am interested in the Minister’s comments on them. The mention by the hon. Member for Twickenham of state special schools was important. I was pleased to see that they have not been paused, but given the speech given last week by the Secretary of State, will the Minister confirm that she still believes in the principle of having separate special schools? Will they be continued and will parents have the choice as to whether they send their kids to them?”
House of Commons13 November 2024Contains Parliamentary information licensed under the Open Parliament Licence v3.0Source ↗