Bridget Phillipson says Kent schools to 'absolutely' get funding
The education secretary has said schools in the South East will "absolutely" get the funding required for new buildings and maintenance.Bridget Phillipson and the Chancellor Rachel Reeves paid a visit to a school in Kent on Thursday to announce an additional £20bn to expand the Schools Building Programme over the next decade.But the secretary of state did not identify which schools in the South East would be joining the expanded programme, saying: "We'll work through all of that process... we want to make sure we're identifying the schools that have the greatest need."Opposition politicians in the area accused her of not understanding the pressures on schools.
Wrotham School, near Sevenoaks, was selected by the previous Conservative government to join the scheme in 2021, and work on the new buildings is due to finish in 2027.Its teachers say funding announced by the Labour government has secured the future of the re-build.Asked whether she could guarantee schools in the region would be part of the new programme, she replied: "Absolutely, we'll make sure that the South East gets the funding that's required in order not just to rebuild schools, but also to put money into maintenance at the schools that are already there, but need extra support too."
More than 500 schools are part of the existing Schools Building Programme. The government says the funding announced on Thursday will allow the re-build of a further 250 schools.The announcement is part of the 10 Year Infrastructure Strategy, which sets out the government's long-term plan for economic, housing and social infrastructure.It comes after last week's Spending Review, in which the chancellor was criticised by some South East politicians for "ignoring" the region.
'Deprivation and need'
The deputy leader of East Sussex County Council, Nick Bennett, said: "I don't think she got lower than Milton Keynes."I'm not sure they've really got some of the pressures around deprivation and need around health and social issues that there is in [Sussex]."Responding to criticism the South East is being neglected, Phillipson said the government wanted to see "good, strong growth right across the country".She said she wanted to see "brilliant opportunities for our children and job opportunities being created"."That's why we'll make sure that there are great new schools being rebuilt in the South East and right across England," she added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
40 minutes ago
- BBC News
Government pledges £900m for sports events & facilities
The government has pledged to spend £900m on major sporting events and grassroots facilities across the UK as part of a "transformational" than £0.5bn of the money will be used to support the delivery of "a pipeline of major international events", including Euro 2028, which will be hosted in the UK and 2026 European Athletics Championships in Birmingham and the Grand Departs of the men's and women's Tour de France cycling races in 2027 will also those events had already received government backing, along with a proposed UK bid to host the women's football World Cup in 2035, which the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is continuing to work on with the home nations football the government is yet to decide whether to support London's bid to host the 2029 World Athletics Championships, with more than 100 of Britain's most renowned athletes urging Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to do so earlier this Secretary Lisa Nandy said: "Sport tells our national story in a way few other things can – uniting communities, inspiring millions, and showcasing our nation on the global stage."This major backing for world-class events will drive economic growth across the country. Coupled with strong investment into grassroots sport, we're creating a complete pathway to allow the next generation of sporting heroes to train and take part in sport in communities across the UK. " In March, the former chair of funding agency UK Sport Dame Katherine Grainger told BBC Sport that it was "frustrating" that Britain was not staging more major events over the next decade, warning of "a big gap". Her successor Nick Webborn said: "We welcome the government's ongoing commitment to hosting the Tour de France, Tour de France Femmes and Euro 2028…and support their commitment to secure the pipeline of big events beyond 2028 to ensure we can continue to reach, inspire and unite people in every corner of the country."Britain is hosting the women's rugby union World Cup in England this year, along with the 2026 Commonwealth Games in Glasgow, but the government is not believed to be backing any bids for golf's Ryder Cup or Solheim part of the funding commitment, the DCMS says that a minimum of £400m will also be invested over the next four years into new and upgraded grassroots sports facilities "that promote health, wellbeing and community cohesion".On Thursday the government announced plans for a new School Sport Partnerships and Enrichment Framework for schools to ensure all young people have equal access to high-quality sport and extracurricular Oliver, chief executive of the Youth Sport Trust, said: "We are grateful to the government for listening and responding so comprehensively to our sector's united call for a reimagined approach to PE and school sport. This will be an amazing boost to those who work so tirelessly, often against the odds, in PE and school sport."Children's activity levels have been too low for too long. We welcome the government seeking to harness the vast potential of play and sport to change this."
Sky News
42 minutes ago
- Sky News
Whitehall officials tried to convince Lord Gove to cover up grooming scandal, he tells Sky News
Whitehall officials tried to convince Lord Michael Gove to go to court to cover up details of a report into the grooming scandal in 2011, he has said, confirming Sky News reporting earlier this week. Speaking to Sky's Politics Hub With Sophy Ridge, the former senior cabinet minister said it is "undoubtedly the case that more should have been done" to prevent the abuse of young girls in Britain, admitting that it weighs on him. The allegations of an attempted cover-up were first made to Sky News by former Downing Street adviser Dominic Cummings in an interview with Sky News, and the claims were substantiated by other sources as well. Mr Cummings was working for Lord Gove, who was then education secretary. Lord Gove explained that in 2011, he learned that the late Times journalist Andrew Norfolk, who he described as "a heroic reporter who did more than anyone to initially uncover this scandal", was seeking to publish details of a report from Rotherham Council about the abuse and grooming of young girls. He said: "Rotherham Council wanted to stop that happening. They wanted to go to court to prevent him publishing some details, and we in the Department for Education were asked by the council, 'would we join in, would we be a party to that court action to stop it?' "And I had to look at the case, advised by Dominic [Cummings] and by others, and there were some within the department, some officials who said, 'be cautious, don't allow this to be published, there may be risks for relatives of the victims concerned." 1:56 Rotherham Council also argued that publication may pose "risks" to the process of "improving in the way in which it handles" grooming cases, he continued. The judicial review wanted by officials would have asked a judge to decide about the lawfulness of The Times' publication plans and the consequences that would flow from this information entering the public domain. But Lord Gove said: "My view at the time, advised by Dominic and by others within the department, was that it was definitely better for it to be published." "So we said to Rotherham, we will join the case, but we're joining it on the side of the Times and Andrew Norfolk because we believe in transparency." 1:11 'Tough questions' for Whitehall Lord Gove went on to say that a national inquiry could see some "tough questions" asked of the Home Office about its culture and its interactions with the police. But those questions will also be posed to two departments he led - the Department for Local Government and the Department of Education, and he said: "I think it's right that there should be, because the nature and scale of what the victims have endured means that there's an obligation on all of us who've been in any form of elected office to be honest and unsparing in looking at what went on." He said he "certainly didn't have the knowledge at my command that we now do about the widespread nature of this activity". 'Not nearly enough' progress made Sophy Ridge put to Lord Gove that despite commissioning a report on what was happening to girls in care, and not seeking to block the publication of Andrew Norfolk's reporting, he still failed to make change. He replied: "Yes, so it is undoubtedly the case that more should have been done." He admitted that it "absolutely" weighs on him, and that "not nearly enough" progress was made on the protection of vulnerable girls. "With the benefit of hindsight, I do wish that I had been more vehement in trying to persuade people to take appropriate action," he said. 1:36 Local government 'sought to deny scale' of scandal The now Spectator editor went on to say that there was "pushback, particularly but not exclusively, from those in local government" to subsequent questions about cultural background, and he said "local councillors and others sought to deny the scale of what was happening and particularly, sought to deny questioning about the identity and the background of the perpetrators". He continued: "I think the right thing to do is for everyone to acknowledge that sometimes there were people who were acting from noble motives, who did not want to increase ethnic and racial anxieties, who did not to fan far-right flames, and thought that it was better to step away from the really grim reality of what was going on. "I can understand that. But ultimately, that didn't serve anyone. It did not serve the victims."
Telegraph
42 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Labour MPs turn on assisted dying Bill
Labour MPs have turned against the assisted dying Bill and, at the eleventh hour, urged their colleagues to vote down the 'drastically weakened' plans. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill returns to the Commons on Friday, where it is set to become law if enough MPs back it in a historic vote. The Bill, under which terminally ill adults expected to die within six months could seek medical assistance to end their lives, was initially passed by 55 votes in November. However, Friday's vote is said to be on a 'knife-edge' after a series of controversies about changes to the Bill that critics say weaken the proposed laws. Labour MPs Markus Campbell-Savours, Kanishka Narayan, Paul Foster and Jonathan Hinder previously backed the Bill, but on Thursday announced that they were switching to vote it down. In a last-minute letter to all MPs, they said: 'The Bill presented to MPs in November has been fundamentally changed. This is not the safest Bill in the world. It is weaker than the one first laid in front of MPs, and has been drastically weakened.' One major point of contention is the dropping of a requirement for a High Court judge to sign off on all assisted dying cases. Under revised plans, patients will be able to have an assisted death with the approval of two doctors and an assisted dying panel, made up of a psychiatrist, social worker and a legal expert. The MPs also warned that predictions of life expectancy could be wrong, with some patients given six months to live going on to survive for three years or more. 'No one should be robbed of the possibility of an extra three years of precious memories with loved ones. Christmases, birthdays, weddings, meeting grandchildren they never thought they may meet,' they said. 'If faced by the same decision, would any of us choose to end our lives if we knew there was a chance to live them instead?' A fifth Labour MP, Dan Carden, also revealed on Thursday that he was switching from abstain to no, as he felt legalising assisted dying 'will normalise the choice of death over life, care, respect and love'. Senior Conservatives have also been critical of the Bill. Danny Kruger, one of the leading voices opposing the legislation, said that it was a 'world away from the limited, carefully safeguarded arrangements that the assisted death campaign promised us'. Writing for The Telegraph (see below), Mr Kruger said those who were approaching the end of their lives, or who were disabled, were vulnerable and 'profoundly influenced by the people around us, not least because we are profoundly dependent on others'. 'We do not make decisions in a vacuum, and imagining we do – pretending that anxious, bullied or depressed patients have the 'autonomy' to make uninfluenced the most momentous decision it is possible for a human being to make – is infantile,' he said. Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, said on Thursday that the legislation was a 'bad Bill' and had 'not been done properly', and urged Tory colleagues to vote against it alongside her. More than 21 MPs are thought to have moved from either supporting the Bill or abstaining to no, with others still to make up their minds. It is unclear whether there have been enough switchers to defeat the Bill, with its backers hopeful that support will hold to bring about the momentous change to the law. In order to stop the Bill, 28 MPs would need to change their votes from yes to no. 'The vote is on a knife-edge,' one figure helping count MP support told The Telegraph. The source also claimed that the number of MPs who abstained on the legislation could rise compared with the first vote in November, making it harder to predict the result. If it passes, the Bill will go to the House of Lords, where it could be amended, but in effect it is almost certain that it will become law and come into effect by 2029. If it is defeated, it is likely that it will be years before the question of legalising assisted dying is put before the Commons again. MPs are rushing back to Westminster, with some critics taking exceptional measures to have their say. Dame Karen Bradley, the former culture secretary, is flying back from a parliamentary group visit to Rome to make sure she can vote against the legislation. She told The Telegraph: 'In all conscience, I couldn't miss the vote. I do not think it will deliver the safeguards that people want and need.' However, some MPs on sick or compassionate leave will not be able to cast their ballot because of parliamentary rules stopping them from voting by proxy. One MP critical of the Bill, Sorcha Eastwood, tested positive for Covid and was set to miss the vote on Thursday. But, according to one opposition campaign source, she is exploring whether an ambulance can take her to Parliament to vote no. There is confusion about whether Sir Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, who has long supported legalising assisted dying, will vote for the Bill. He has declined to publicly make the case for the change in an apparent attempt to make sure he does not influence the debate, given that MPs are free to vote with their consciences. A Downing Street spokesman declined to confirm on Thursday that the Prime Minister would vote to legalise assisted dying. He voted yes in November. The vote stems from a Private Member's Bill, which means it is being spearheaded by a backbench MP with the Government neutral on the issue. Kim Leadbeater, the Labour MP behind the legislation, moved to back an amendment from Naz Shah, a Labour MP and an opponent of assisted dying, in a sign she is scrambling to reassure MPs concerned about the Bill's safeguards. The amendment would bar people becoming eligible for an assisted death purely on the basis that they had voluntarily stopped eating and drinking. Ms Leadbeater has insisted that this change would close the so-called 'anorexia loophole' – a gap in safeguards that means sufferers could qualify for assisted dying on the basis of life-threatening malnutrition. However, in the final 24 hours before the vote, Ms Shah, who tabled the amendment, as well as leading psychiatrists and eating disorder charities, said this claim was wrong. Patients with severe eating disorders could still be deemed eligible for assisted death if their physical decline – caused by a treatable mental illness – was judged to be life-threatening, they said. On Thursday night, Dr Annabel Price, the Royal College of Psychiatrists' lead on assisted dying in England and Wales, told The Telegraph that the 'anorexia loophole' could only be closed if this exclusion was set out on the face of the Bill. 'If the [Terminally Ill Adults] Bill were to proceed, it is essential that it excludes the physical effects of mental disorder as the basis for eligibility. Malnutrition caused by anorexia nervosa, for example, has been deemed as a terminal illness under similar pieces of legislation in other jurisdictions,' she said. On Thursday, Ms Leadbeater said she was 'positive and optimistic' that the Bill would pass, insisting at a press conference that her legislation was 'the most robust assisted dying Bill in the world'. Dangerous Bill is a world away from what the campaign promised By Danny Kruger Never mind the process. The late publication of Kim Leadbeater's Bill, the huge changes she made to it after the first big vote in the Commons, the unbalanced evidence sessions and the rushed debates – all that is secondary. The main problem is the Bill itself, which is a world away from the limited, carefully safeguarded arrangements that the assisted death campaign promised us. I understand the fear of a bad death, particularly as people approach older age. For them, this isn't an abstract but an imminent threat. Many will have known their contemporaries die badly, in pain and distress and at the mercy of a health system that simply isn't good enough at managing the end of life. Personally, I don't think this is a reason to legalise assisted suicide. The fact is there is no pain that can't be lessened by modern analgesic medicine and techniques such as nerve blocks, and there is always palliative sedation (an induced coma) for those who need it. We do not need to kill people to spare them pain. But I respect the view of those who think this option should exist to give people peace of mind that they will not face an agonising death. But this isn't a Bill just for those people. Kim Leadbeater rejected amendments that would have restricted the new service to people seeking to avoid pain. The Bill contains no criteria for who is eligible, or why they want to die. As she admitted in the Bill committee, a person whose sole motivation for seeking an assisted death is to save their family money would be perfectly eligible to proceed; indeed, the doctors or the expert panel that approves the death would not be allowed to refuse an application on these grounds. And so every ill or frail person approaching the end of their lives – and all the disabled people who would qualify too – will be obligated to consider this option. They would have to decide whether they want to live for longer, a burden on their family and the NHS, or to do what will increasingly be seen as the 'right thing to do'. Put like this – given our natural and admirable impulse not to be a burden on others, and our fear of suffering – you can see why so many people, many more than the handful of desperate cases the campaigners parade in their advertising, would feel compelled to take this option. In parts of Canada, with the law there less than a decade old, nearly 10 per cent of deaths are 'assisted'. This is our future too if we pass this Bill. Yes, it's an 'option', and you don't have to do it. But this libertarian framing of the issue misses the reality of vulnerability. At the end of life, or if we are disabled, we are profoundly influenced by the people around us, not least because we are profoundly dependent on others. We do not make decisions in a vacuum, and imagining we do – pretending that anxious, bullied or depressed patients have the autonomy to make uninfluenced the most momentous decision it is possible for a human being to make – is infantile. As Gordon Brown argued in a powerful intervention this week, the 'options' are not equal. The assisted death route will be organised, funded, advertised. The alternative, palliative care, is underfunded, bureaucratic and in places non-existent. But there is hope. If we reject this Bill, we can do what the whole House agrees needs to be done – we can properly fix palliative care. We can invest real money in hospices and ensure everyone has the care they deserve – without pain, with dignity – at the end of life. That would be a worthy conclusion of Kim Leadbeater's efforts, and of all the words we have wasted on her flawed and dangerous Bill.
