Westminster Hall

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

Monday 27 October 2025

[Emma Lewell in the Chair]

Holidays During School Term Time

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Relevant document: Oral evidence taken before the Education Committee on 22 July 2025, on school attendance, Session 2024-25, HC 1216.]

16:30

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 700047 relating to holidays during school term time.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am privileged to open today’s debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank not only Natalie Elliott, the creator of the petition, but the 181,598 signatories who have made today’s debate possible. I also thank the Petitions Committee team for their work, including the comprehensive programme of engagement they organised in advance of today’s debate. I launched my own public consultation on this issue and have received thousands of responses, and I will try to reflect the views of those I have been lucky enough to have interacted with in preparing for the debate.

Let me start by laying out the key frustration of the people who signed the petition. Holidays are expensive, and as we all know their price jumps hugely during typical holiday seasons. Unfortunately, market forces mean that many families simply cannot afford a holiday during school breaks. One parent from Keighley told me that she was quoted £1,000 more per person for a February half-term holiday than for one the following week, meaning an identical family holiday would cost thousands of pounds more simply because it was taken during school holidays. This view was reflected by so many families who feel they are being priced out by what is clearly predatory pricing from holiday companies.

It is worth pausing to seriously consider the value of a holiday. Holidays are not just frivolity; big or small, near or far, they provide a crucial few days for family members to breathe, spend time with one other and fortify themselves against the next 12 months of work and school. That is even more valuable now that many families have two working parents. Holidays are also a vital part of expanding a child’s horizons. There is an important sentiment that we should go away from home not just to see how we might improve our wellbeing, but because, when we return, we will be able to cherish all the more those things we find good and familiar.

Holidays can provide educational and vocational experiences that are impossible to replicate in the classroom. Sarah, a parent from Haworth in my constituency, told me that holidays helped her children

“get out of their comfort zone, learn something new and experience new cultures”.

Another parent, a dairy farmer from Skipton, said school holidays are the busiest time of the year on their farm, and that term-time breaks are the only opportunity to take time away as a family, reinforcing the balance between work, rest and family life.

It is not unreasonable that families should aspire to an annual family holiday, with all the benefits I just outlined, but parents are rightly concerned that the current system, which allows fines to be used for even a single unauthorised absence and requires that they be considered if a child is absent for five days in any 10-week period, criminalises them for simply wanting time with their children—not to mention the economic cost of the fines themselves. Jack, a young man from Keighley, shared that his single mother was repeatedly threatened with fines and even legal action for absences that they could not afford to avoid. He described the stress that that caused their family as “crushing”.

The fundamental challenge is that those on both sides of this debate can claim to have the best interests of a child at heart. Attendance is, of course, important, but so are family time and the educational and recreational benefits of a good holiday. We should not be pursuing attendance for attendance’s sake, or pursuing it solely because high attendance might look good in an Ofsted inspection. We need only look at the devastating effects of school closures during covid to see the catastrophic consequences of persistent absenteeism: learning is damaged, safeguarding signs are missed and children miss out on key opportunities to socialise into society. But when we consider just a few days a year for a family holiday for otherwise present children, are we really talking about the same issue? As one teacher who responded to my survey put it:

“Just because a child is physically in the building does not mean they are learning—a child who is burnt out or anxious may gain far more from a few days’ respite with family.”

It is surely true that the parents paying these fines and objecting to feelings of having broken the law are the same parents who are generally law abiding and value their children being in school. The fines are not successfully tackling the national scandal of persistent absenteeism in the wake of covid, and yet they are wreaking havoc for otherwise well-meaning families. Indeed, 487,300 penalty notices for unauthorised absences were issued in the 2023-24 academic year, an increase of 22% on 398,800 in the previous year.

At local level, many local authorities have attempted to adjust processes to improve attendance, with little to no positive impact. In Bradford, the council has issued 11,565 fixed penalty notices this year alone. Views on the issue are certainly not settled. As a serving headteacher who responded to my survey put it:

“There are only 190 school days per year and a huge amount of learning coverage to get through in the National Curriculum. A child taking ‘just’ 10 days leave each year of their statutory education would miss a staggering 25 full weeks of their education—that’s well over half a year’s lost learning time.”

On one level, there is the challenge of how we tackle absenteeism effectively without punishing parents seeking to enrich the lives of their children, and on another there is the challenge of ensuring that that does not have an impact on a child’s education.

Another hugely important area is children with special educational needs and disabilities. As we know, the SEND system is in crisis, for a whole range of reasons. For many SEND families, a family holiday is one of the key opportunities to decompress from the stress, but the busy holiday period is too much for many SEND children to handle. Natalie was very keen to put that point to me when we had our initial discussions before this debate.

For some SEND families, off-peak holidays are not a matter of money or convenience; they are a wellbeing requirement for their child. Why should a child struggling with SEND be denied the same access to a holiday as a non-SEND classmate by the threat of fines being issued to their parent? Sophie, the mother of a 10-year-old recently diagnosed with learning difficulties, told me that her daughter

“thrives and comes out of her shell”

when abroad, saying that the trips are about building confidence and life skills. Another parent, who cares for a child with autism, said that the crowded peak periods are simply impossible for their family to manage and that off-peak breaks are often the only realistic option. It is absolutely true that SEND children have some of the biggest challenges with absenteeism from the classroom, but in the grand scheme of things, are the few days of a family holiday for a child who is generally in school the days that schools and local authorities should be going after, or should other matters be considered?

It is clear that the existing model is broken on a purely practical level. For a parent with multiple children in different schools, the situation becomes even more complex. In my outreach, I heard from a number of families about the nightmare of getting permission for one child to be absent, but not getting it for the other. The parents are then left asking themselves whether to call the whole holiday off or take the financial hit. How do they make sure that one child is not blamed by another for the cancellation of their family holiday? The likelihood of getting permission can vary wildly between schools and local authorities. Government guidance has been issued, but it is clearly being treated as just that.

I want to finish with what I hope might be a solution to help us sidestep the issue that we are considering. Parents should not have to feel that they are battling the state to get the best for their child; they should be able to rely on the state to help them. Academies already possess the power to alter their term dates, provided that they meet the minimum requirement for annual teaching time. I know of a number of schools that have successfully used those powers to provide odd weeks within their school year outside term time. That slight change in term dates creates opportunities for many parents and cleanly sidesteps the whole issue, creating off-peak holiday time that is accessible to families who would otherwise feel that they had to take a term-time holiday. I stress that it does not reduce the overall hours of learning that a child undertakes annually; it merely redistributes them throughout the year. What is more, providing a clear, comprehensive week of holiday outside peak times empowers heads to remain strict about term-time holidays that are taken regardless.

[Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)]

The steps that the hon. Member is outlining seem clear and pragmatic. Local children used to take time off school to go to the Great Yorkshire Show. He talked about expanding horizons and the educational and vocational understanding of things. Does he agree that another pragmatic step would be allowing time off school for people to enjoy things like the Great Yorkshire Show?

[Robbie Moore]

As a fellow Yorkshire MP, I absolutely agree with allowing time out of the classroom for children to go to really good education settings like those provided by agricultural societies and others. That can absolutely be a way of enriching a child’s experience and learning outcomes. If a school becomes an academy, the headteacher has the flexibility to make those decisions on behalf of their students. I would advocate for all schools’ heads to consider that as part of enriched learning. Critics will be quick to point out that the solution that I have proposed is available only to academies, but I suggest that that is a reason to expand academies and expand the powers of local authority schools, and not to ignore what I believe is a sensible solution to a tricky issue.

I will close with a response that I received from the chair of governors of a local school in Yorkshire, who summed up the fundamental tension well and is against the objective of the petition. It states:

“Schools are challenged enough on attendance and ensuring children get a good education. More disadvantaged children are proportionally more affected by both sides of this argument.

The bigger question should be, what is the government doing to fund schools to allow children to get the broader experiences they are getting on these proposed days off?

How are they supporting education in different cultures, languages and travel?”

I hope that in opening the debate, I have adequately highlighted the pressures on the current, fine-based system and the many exacerbating factors, particularly for families with SEND children. I am sure that colleagues will have their own local stories and cases to share, and I hope that I have set the scene, on both sides of the argument, for a lively debate.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Emma Lewell (in the Chair)]

Order. Will Members please keep their contributions to five minutes, so that everyone can get in? I the Chair of the Education Committee.

16:43

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I start by recognising the strength of feeling on term-time absences from school, particularly among the almost 182,000 people who signed the petition. Family life is precious, and there are so many pressures bearing down on families that serve to make time spent together relaxing and enjoying one another’s company all the more important. Going away on holiday; major family celebrations; religious holidays not currently reflected in our school calendar; caring responsibilities; parental separation—a whole range of circumstances can seem like more important priorities than being in school every single day of the school year, but I will set out three reasons why I do not agree that 10 days of permitted absence a year is the right way to address these concerns.

First, and most importantly, all the evidence indicates that it is in children’s best interests to be in school with their peers as much as they possibly can. The link between attendance at school and attainment is strong: the Government’s data shows that key stage 2 pupils in year 6 who attended almost every day were 1.3 times more likely to achieve the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with pupils who attended 90% to 95% of the time. Missing 10 days of school a year reduced the likelihood of achieving the expected standard by 25%.

For key stage 4 pupils in year 11, the situation is even starker. Missing 10 days of school reduces the chance of gaining a grade 5 in English or maths by 50%. That is because education builds from the foundations of a subject upwards. Missing days of education results in gaps in knowledge and understanding, which can affect a child’s ability to grasp future concepts properly, meaning that they never fully catch up.

Secondly, a major concern of many petitioners is the excessive cost of holidays outside term time. Holidays are really important, and families should be able to go away. It is absolutely wrong for travel companies to exploit the constraints of families with children of school age by hiking up their prices during the school holidays. The practice is simply unfair—but the solution to the unfair pricing policies of travel companies is not to allow parents to remove their children from school to be able to afford a holiday; it is for travel companies to do the right thing and even out their pricing over the year, so that parents of school-age children are not penalised for doing the right thing and keeping their children in school.

Thirdly, I am concerned about the impact of a change in policy to allow authorised absence for some parents on the attendance of the most vulnerable pupils. We have an attendance crisis in our schools at present; more than 22% of children severely or persistently absent from school. My Committee has been doing some work on school attendance, and we know that persistent and severe absence is a complex problem with a number of contributory factors, including poverty, an increased level of social, emotional and mental health need following the covid-19 pandemic, and the crisis in the SEND system.

School leaders tell us that the pandemic broke the social contract between schools and parents, and that it has often been difficult to repair it. Introducing an entitlement to authorised absence would send entirely the wrong message to families at a time when the whole system should be pulling together to restore trust and confidence and to support children who are struggling to be in school to thrive.

For the most vulnerable children, school is a protective factor. It is where they can get a hot meal—thanks to this Government, they are able to get both a healthy and nutritious breakfast and a hot lunch—can forge positive relationships with trusted adults and can access not only education, but a wider range of enriching extracurricular activities. If we say it is fine for the children of parents who can afford a holiday to skip school for 10 days, what message are we sending about the importance of being in school to the families who may never have the opportunity to go on holiday, but who often encounter significant obstacles in getting their children to school, for a wide range of reasons?

The current challenges of severe and persistent absence demand multiple solutions. Schools must continue to rebuild relationships of trust with parents. The Government’s reforms to SEND and to the curriculum and assessment framework must ensure that school is an exciting, inspiring and engaging place for all children and young people. The child poverty strategy must remove the barriers to school attendance for the poorest pupils.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member’s argument, but does she agree that slapping on fines will make the relationship between parents and schools more adversarial, creating more problems than it tries to solve?

[Helen Hayes]

I have not mentioned fines, but I agree that fining parents is a very flawed area of policy. I do not want to say it is always entirely the wrong thing to do, but fines are not a particularly effective mechanism for discouraging parents from removing their children from school for a holiday. The cost of a fine is almost always cheaper than the additional costs of a holiday outside term time. That is why I said that the solution to the imbalance in costs across term time is not to enable and authorise that absence, but to deal with the exploitative policies of travel companies. Fines, undoubtedly, are an imperfect mechanism.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will recall that we in the Education Committee held an evidence session in July about school attendance. One of the witnesses stated that fines are

“simultaneously too harsh and too soft”;

too harsh, because they damage the relationship between parents and schools, but too soft to move the dial substantially on school attendance. Although, as a former teacher, I agree with the main thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument, does she have any further reflection on the need to look at the fines system again, to replace it or to come up with something more effective?

[Helen Hayes]

Fundamentally, we are talking about relationships in this debate, particularly between schools and parents. The best way to build strong relationships is not through punitive measures. We need to properly resource schools, through the wider policy work of Government, to rebuild the relationships that were so damaged by the pandemic, and to make progress in this area.

Finally, I come back to where I started. Family time matters, and family holidays are important periods of fun and restoration. I call on the Government to do more—to work with the travel industry to stop the exploitation of families with school-age children through unfair price hikes, perhaps by introducing a new family-friendly charter mark for companies that even out their pricing throughout the year—and to continue to ease the cost of living pressures that far too many families face, so that every child can thrive both in school and at play.

16:50

[Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

Parents bring their children into this world; they clothe them, feed them, love them, raise them and, yes, educate them. Schools should support families, not to replace them. Yet right now in Britain parents are being fined and threatened simply for taking their children out of school for a handful of days to spend meaningful time together as a family. Is that such an awful crime? I think not.

This is a society that treats the state, not the parent, as the ultimate authority. The Government claim that missing five days of school a year will somehow destroy a child’s education. Really? If so, we have no confidence in our education system at all. Meanwhile, schools hold teacher training days in term time, or teachers strike and shut classrooms; yet somehow it is parents who are punished when learning is interrupted.

I say they should take the teacher training days in the school holidays—there are certainly plenty of those to choose from. The state must realise that parents are not the enemy. A short term-time family holiday is not an act of neglect; often, it is the only opportunity many families ever get for such an experience, because the travel industry hikes prices to astronomical levels outside term time.

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

Would the hon. Member agree that, while price controls are a nice idea in theory, they are a terrible idea in practice? Supply and demand ultimately dictate the price of something so, while it is a nice suggestion, it would not work in real life. Does he agree?

[Rupert Lowe]

I agree with the hon. Member.

Why should working families be priced out of memories—particularly parents such as those in my Great Yarmouth constituency, who rely so heavily on the tourism trade during the school holidays for their careers or business activity? Parents know what is best for their children far better than a distant bureaucrat sitting in Westminster armed with a spreadsheet. Those are the same bureaucrats who thought it best to lock children away from school for months on end for what equated to a bad cold for the vast majority of them during lockdown. I think I will listen to the parents.

I suggest three basic reforms. Every family should have the right to a small number of authorised term-time absence days each year, at the family’s discretion; there should be no fines for responsible parents; headteachers must be empowered to use their own judgment. Let us end the nonsense that Government officials somehow know our children better than we do.

Childhood is short. Parents should not need permission from the state to raise their own children. It is time to return authority to parents and to shrink the reach of this bloated and inefficient state into our family lives. Let us put families back at the top of the agenda, where they used to be.

16:50

[Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on holidays in school term time. This issue resonates deeply with families across the country, including in my own constituency of Hartlepool, where 530 residents signed the petition we are debating today.

Let us start with the reality that every parent recognises. They search for a family holiday in June and it costs a certain amount; they search for one in August and the cost has exploded. For many families those price hikes make a break together completely unaffordable. I have taken to calling it the Center Parcs tax. This morning I searched the Center Parcs website for a short break next May. Four nights from 11 May is £599; from 18 May it is £599; but from 25 May it is £1,349—a £750 mark-up for the exact same trip, simply because it falls in half-term. It is cheaper to take the fine.

Of course, it is not just one company; the practice is rife across the entire holiday sector. Families are being priced out of spending time together, and the state’s response is to fine them for trying. It is immoral. I say to the Minister, “Ban those practices by holiday companies and end the culture of fines.” Parents should not have to choose between doing the right thing by their children’s education and giving them a well-earned family break. Families already struggling with the cost of living should not be punished for trying to give their children the same experiences as everyone else.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Could the hon. Member explain how he would stop that practice by the holiday companies?

[Mr Brash]

There are a number of mechanisms. The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), offered one solution. I am a believer in price controls in this area and that the state can intervene in the market here; it is basic fairness.

Of course attendance matters. As a former teacher, I have seen at first hand the link between attendance and attainment. Students with 100% attendance are nearly three times more likely to achieve five good GCSEs, including English and maths, compared with those whose attendance drops to 65% to 70%. But let us be honest with parents: the current system is not working. Expecting families to pay fines to prove a point about attendance does nothing to tackle the real problem.

Research shows that fining parents does not improve attendance. There is no statistically significant link between more fines and better attendance rates. Indeed, the UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report found the same internationally: fines do not work, but they do harm low-income families. Instead, punitive measures often make things worse, creating tension and mistrust between families and schools. We know many children with poor attendance have special educational needs, as has already been mentioned, or anxiety or mental health issues. Punishing their parents does not solve those challenges; it just adds financial and emotional pressure. The Centre for Mental Health has even warned that fines can exacerbate the very issues that keep children away from school.

I am proud that in Hartlepool we are trying to look at things differently. Alongside nine other local areas, we are part of a pilot programme run with the Department for Education and a social enterprise called Etio. I met Etio last week, and what it is doing is simple but powerful. When it comes to attendance, the focus is on support. Its teams sit down with families to understand what is really going on, whether it is anxiety, caring responsibilities, transport programmes or financial hardship, and offer practical help to get children back into the classroom. The results are encouraging. When families feel supported rather than criminalised, attendance improves and relationships between schools and parents are strengthened. It is just common sense. If we fix the root cause, we fix the problem.

That is the approach we should champion nationally, replacing the blunt instrument of fines with early help, understanding and partnership, because the issue goes far deeper than holiday costs. It is about fairness, common sense and respect for families. Parents should not be treated as offenders for trying to spend time with their children and for giving them a holiday.

16:59

[Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening this important debate. The strength of feeling behind this petition is clear, with over 1,000 signatures in my constituency alone. It was raised by my constituent, Natalie Elliott, a formidable campaigner and a vital supporter to families facing fines, often in stressful and traumatic circumstances. The petition proposes that families should be permitted to take their children out of school for up to 10 days without facing fines. While I will not pre-empt the Minister’s response, recent indications suggest that the Government are unlikely to support this proposal, given their stance that absence is one of the biggest barriers to success. However, despite differing views on the status quo, it is clear to me that both the petitioner and the Government share a common purpose: the wellbeing of our children.

I am a firm believer that a good education is one of the most powerful tools for social mobility. Coming from a working-class background, access to quality state education gave me opportunities that ultimately led me to serve in this House. However, under the current system, families face significant challenges. The national framework for penalty notices is applied inconsistently across England. Research by Confused.com found that Essex issued over 35,000 fines between 2022 and 2024, while Cornwall issued just 535. Even within local authority areas, there is a postcode lottery. Educators have told me that pressure to improve attendance can lead to overly rigid policies. Some schools mandate only four sick days per year, refuse to authorise any Friday absences and demand medical evidence for minor illnesses. That not only contradicts statutory guidance but adds pressure to an already overstretched NHS.

There is sometimes a lack of empathy for family circumstances. My constituent Chris faced court action because the local authority could not find a special school place for his child. Thankfully, the judge agreed that fining a parent because the local authority was not meeting their child’s needs was inappropriate, and promptly kicked the case out. I have also heard of fines issued during bereavement. There is no appeals process—just pay the fine or risk criminal conviction. Will the Minister consider an appeals mechanism?

SEND families are particularly affected, and the system in Derbyshire is under immense strain. Children with autism or ADHD often cannot cope with busy holiday periods, yet their families are fined for going away when it is quieter. Those children have a right to family life and legal protections, but too often they are overlooked. If this Government are serious about reducing absenteeism, I urge them to include school attendance in the upcoming SEND White Paper.

I acknowledge the Government’s efforts to ease the cost of family life, from expanding free school meals and nursery care, to breakfast clubs and cheaper uniforms. Those are important steps. But when families with the means to send their children to private schools are exempt from penalties, and those who can afford peak-season travel face no deterrent, yet others must choose between incurring a fine or forgoing a family holiday altogether, we are not dealing with a minor inconvenience but confronting a structural inequality. The injustice does not stop at the school gates. Holiday companies continue to exploit demand through dynamic pricing, pushing costs beyond reach for ordinary families. What action will the Government take to tackle this profiteering and ensure that family holidays are not a luxury for the few, but within the reach of all?

17:03

[James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)]

It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this debate, and for a remark that he made during his opening speech, which I think we can all thoroughly agree with: everyone in this debate, regardless of view, completely supports having children’s welfare at the centre of this. I certainly champion that.

We are not debating the importance of education, because we all thoroughly agree on that. Regardless of our side of the debate, we also agree that some of the statistics relating to children’s attainment depending on their attendance records are quite striking. There is clearly a correlation there. But correlation is not necessarily causation. We have heard today that people can be there in body but not in mind. There is definitely a difference between trustworthy, decent parents choosing to take their children out of school at an appropriate time for appropriate reasons, and truancy.

We are debating whether fines are appropriate for holidays. I do not think they are at all appropriate, but I agree with tackling the causes of truancy and supporting families so that children receive an education. I hope everyone believes me when I say I am a firm believer in education. However, it is not appropriate for the Government to fine families who are decent, thorough and good—as we should assume they are in the vast majority of cases—for choosing to take their children out when there are no opportunities for debate with the school, to make exceptions or to let reason speak for itself. It is thoroughly wrong, and we are doing a lot of decent families a disservice.

I am not for letting children and families just do whatever, because I appreciate that, on the other side of this debate, are the teachers who have to manage the additional challenge that that would bring. However, we are humans and this is a human world; ultimately, we should support, not penalise, decent and reasonable people making decent and reasonable decisions for themselves. On that basis, I support the cancelling of fines for parents taking their children out of school.

17:06

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

Like many constituencies across the country, Sherwood Forest sees stark evidence that educational inequalities are deeply entrenched. As someone who worked on the frontline in education, I know beyond any doubt that attendance is vital for achievement. The reality of how our education system works is that every missed school day means a gap in learning. For children already facing disadvantage, that gap can become a chasm.

When a child’s family struggles, their education is the best route out of poverty and for the future—I have seen that personally. We must do everything to support their time in the classroom. However, we also stand on the shoulders of the generations who fought for the fundamental right to a break. That is not a new concept; it is woven into our social history. Let us think of the pioneering work of Cadbury, which a century ago revolutionised the idea of the workplace, recognising that employees were entitled to leisure time and a full, well-rounded life. Alternatively, there is the proud tradition of “Nottingham by the sea”. For decades, factories and pits across Nottinghamshire would shut down simultaneously for wakes week. Families would flock to Skegness—a collective, essential journey for rest and recuperation. That was not a luxury; it was a societal commitment to the wellbeing of hard-working working-class people and their families.

The rights to a break, to a breath of fresh air and to simply spend time together as a family have long been recognised as an essential component of a healthy, productive society, so how did it become acceptable that companies raise their prices as they have?

Whether for a nostalgic caravan holiday in Skegness or Great Yarmouth, which many of us enjoyed as kids, or a much-needed trip to Spain, why are travel and holiday companies permitted to quadruple their prices the moment the school bell rings? That is not simple economics, but exploitation. It is an outrage and a stain on our society. Hard-working parents who keep our local economy moving are deliberately priced out of a basic, restorative family holiday.

[Shockat Adam]

In the absence of being able to change the minds of our tour operators, does the hon. Member agree that we may need to look at the whole timetable of our syllabuses and school terms? They date back to Victorian times 150 or 160 years ago. Perhaps we should have a five-term academic year and more frequent two-week breaks.

[Michelle Welsh]

I absolutely agree, especially as someone who has a five-year old and was trying to balance this during the recess.

Who pays the highest price for this? The children of the families who are already struggling. Those children often live in cramped housing, rely on school for hot meals and desperately need the stimulation, new experiences and simple joy of a family holiday. They are denied the chance to build memories and see the world beyond their postcode, which is vital. I have taken some of the most vulnerable children in the east midlands away on adventure holidays—they have an enormous impact on their education and wellbeing. We cannot stand by while a family’s well-deserved rest is treated as a penalty to be charged. A break for a family is not a privilege to be rationed; it is a right that must be protected.

17:10

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on leading this debate and making many a point that I am about to make and agree with.

I thank those who created and signed the petition, including 357 of my constituents. I have heard from many families who are deeply concerned about the current approach to school attendance and the impact of fines for term-time holidays. Those concerns are especially pressing for those facing challenging circumstances, including financial pressures and limited flexibility in their work schedules, along with those who have children with special educational needs and disabilities, for whom routine, flexibility and emotional wellbeing are often more complex and nuanced.

At the heart of this issue is a tension between two important priorities: ensuring that children benefit from consistent education, and recognising the value of quality time spent together as a family. There is no doubt that regular school attendance is vital. Department for Education research published in March showed a strong correlation between attendance and attainment, with just 10 days’ absence in year 6 reducing the likelihood of achieving the expected standard by 25%, as has been mentioned. Persistent absenteeism can lead to gaps in learning, reduced engagement and difficulties reintegrating into the classroom, all of which can have long-term consequences and act as a significant barrier to opportunity.

We must also acknowledge that family time matters. Shared experiences strengthen family bonds, support emotional wellbeing and create lasting memories, which are vital for a child’s overall development. Those moments are not just desirable; they are necessary. We also need to consider the needs of individual children, particularly those with SEND, including neurodivergent pupils. Any parent of a neurodivergent child—including myself—will say that busier environments, unfamiliar routines and crowded travel periods can be overwhelming and distressing. For some, taking a holiday during quieter times may be the only way a family can ensure their child feels safe, regulated and able to enjoy the experience. In those cases, flexibility around term-time absence is not just helpful; it is a matter of inclusion and wellbeing.

Being unable to choose when to take time off is another broader but related challenge that many families face. For some constituents who have contacted me—notably, an airline pilot—holiday periods are allocated or restricted by employers, limiting parents’ ability to align their leave with school breaks. That lack of flexibility makes it difficult for families to spend meaningful time together, even when school holidays are available.

As we have heard a lot, the most common concern I hear—one that every person here with a child of school age will have experienced—is the inflated cost of holidays during school breaks. Those price hikes make holidays unaffordable for many, meaning that children miss out on valuable experiences, simply because their parents cannot afford to travel during peak times. For parents on lower incomes who decide to take their children on holiday during school term time, the financial challenges they face are often compounded by the imposition of a fine, which many families struggle to afford. That unfairness is exacerbated by a perception of inconsistency. Families tell me that requests for authorised absence are handled differently from one school to another—in particular, between schools in the state sector and independent schools. That lack of uniformity creates confusion and frustration, and can feel unfair to parents trying to do the right thing.

There is no straightforward answer to any of these challenges, but I have long been an advocate of switching to the five-term school year. That model would offer more evenly distributed holidays throughout the year, reducing pressure on the summer break and giving families greater flexibility. It could also help ease the financial burden by spreading demand more evenly across the calendar, potentially lowering travel costs. For teachers, the benefits of a five-term year are equally compelling. Teaching is a demanding profession, and the current long stretches between holidays can lead to fatigue and burnout. More frequent, shorter breaks would allow teachers to recharge regularly, improving wellbeing and job satisfaction. It would also support better curriculum planning, reduce the pressure of end-of-term assessments and create a more sustainable rhythm for teaching and learning.

It is important to recognise that each family has its own unique circumstances, and there is not a one-size-fits-all rule for when spending time together is appropriate. While I agree that school attendance must remain a priority, we must recognise the realities that families face. A more compassionate, flexible and consistent approach that values both education and family life is not only possible but necessary. By rethinking the structure of the school year and advocating for greater flexibility in the workplace, I believe we can create a system that works better for everyone.

17:15

[Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on introducing the petition, and I thank the petitioners themselves. I am also grateful to the 865 people in Stevenage who signed this petition, showing how strongly families feel about the issue.

I will shortly turn to some of the reasons why the petition really matters, but before I do, I must be clear that every day in school counts—and parents agree. In addition to the evidence that we have heard from the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), 78% of parents say that every school day matters, according to the charity Parentkind. The evidence backs them up: missing even a few days can have a big impact. Year 6 pupils with near perfect attendance are 30% more likely to meet expected standards. Secondary pupils with near perfect attendance are almost twice as likely to achieve a grade 5 in English and Maths. Persistently absent pupils could earn £10,000 less by the age of 28.

Normalising the taking of time off in term time would send the wrong message. It would undermine teachers’ hard work and risks widening the attainment gap. Every missed day is not just a lost lesson, but a lost opportunity. I am sure that many of the parents who signed this petition would wholeheartedly agree with that, but, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley explained at the outset, it is simply the only way they can afford quality family time together.

Just last week, a constituent told me that the only way they can afford a holiday is to take their children out of school one or two days before the end of term, knowing they would not risk a fine but can still take advantage of cheaper prices. If parents have to play the system like that, we know that the system itself is broken. The real problem, which many Members have touched on, is that families are not breaking rules because they do not care; they are simply being priced out.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) started with Center Parcs, so let me turn to Center Parcs. Four days at Center Parcs Woburn Forest, near me, in term time is £429. In February half-term, that goes up to £1,449—an increase of 238%. At Center Parcs in Longleat, four days in term time is £579, but in half-term it is £1,599—an increase of 176%.

A British Airways flight from Heathrow to Geneva costs £184 in term time, but in half-term that goes up to £3,072, which is a 1,570% increase—and it is outbound only. In May half-term, a TUI Tenerife package for seven days in term time costs £1,204, and in half-term it costs £2,384—an increase of 98%. A Jet2 flight to Bodrum in term time is £500, but in half-term it is £1,065, which is an increase of 113%. Then there are the summer holidays, which are much longer, but people still get hit. A Ryanair flight from Newcastle to Faro in term time is £140, but in the summer holidays, it is £340—an increase of 143%. With packages in Spain on Go.Compare, seven days in term time is £290 per person, but that goes up to £384 in the school holidays, meaning that a family would pay £760 more.

What can the Government do to stop the travel industry from exploiting families with outrageous price hikes during school holidays? Fines are simply not working. According to Parentkind, 61% of parents say that the risk of a fine makes no difference to them. Families feel trapped between unaffordable prices and rigid rules. Even when they want to play by the rules, they are still penalised. A single mum in Stevenage told me that she had been fined even though it had been her ex-husband who took their child out of school.

Let us not pit education against family time; let us ensure that both are respected and that no parent is forced to choose between their child’s education and quality family time together.

17:20

[Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.

In Mansfield, 850 people signed this petition because they believe that families deserve some fairness, freedom and a bit of common sense. I believe they also know that a rounded education is about a bit more than attendance and penalty notices. It is also about giving our children experiences, memories and time with their families—the sort of time that helps them to grow, to feel loved and to see the world beyond the classroom.

Let us be honest, for working families in towns such as mine, the idea of a week away in August has become a luxury that very few can afford. When prices triple the moment that schools break up, parents are faced with an impossible choice: break the rules or break the bank. These parents are decent, hard-working people, such as nurses, shop workers, delivery drivers and care assistants. They do everything right. They work all year and pay their taxes, and then they are told that they cannot take their kids away for a few days because it is term time. Working people deserve a break and families deserve a choice, and the state should not be micro-managing family life to this extent.

Last week, I put out a social media post asking people for their comments on this issue ahead of our debate. I have had literally thousands of comments, replies and emails from constituents. The response has been completely overwhelming, and here are just a few of the comments. Katie says:

“There’s a cost of living crisis making it difficult to go on holiday during term time as it is more expensive, we are trying our hardest to ensure our children live a happy and fulfilling life and make sure they have many happy memories.”

Lauren says:

“For many of us, especially those of us who are working in the NHS and other key sectors, aligning leave with school holidays is often impossible. Families are left with that heartbreaking choice—miss out on precious time together or face financial penalties.”

Lisa, whose name I have changed, is a foster parent with disabled children who has also been fined. She said:

“Due to the age and disability of our children, we were very limited by when suitable accommodation was available. Our children’s attendance was otherwise excellent - their only absences were for hospital appointments, over which we have absolutely no control, and there are no concerns with their academic attainment.”

Holly, a constituent of mine who is awaiting a fine, wrote to me:

“School and education is a priority for my family, but to make parents feel like criminals is not acceptable. Let’s remember children get one childhood, and life is not always simple, with family illness, death and other issues that occur, not just holidays.”

That is what life looks like for real families in my constituency and across the UK. They are not asking for weeks and weeks off; they are asking for just a few days every year to make family memories without fear of being fined for it.

Of course children need the best possible education—every one of us wants that—but education is not just about exams and attainment. It is also about experience, balance and wellbeing. Right now, I believe that we have got the balance wrong. Let us trust parents a little more. Let us treat them like adults. Let us show a bit of compassion and common sense, because families in Mansfield and right across our country have made it clear to me—and to all of us, I believe—that they want the freedom to decide what is best for their own children.

17:24

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this debate and setting out the issues, and I thank the more than 181,000 members of the public who signed the petition, 243 of whom are from my constituency.

We know that being in school is the best way for children to reach their potential. Absence from school, especially when persistent—I will come back to that later in my speech—can impact children both academically and socially. Yet for some children, our system is designed in such a way that school itself can impact on their wellbeing. The petition that has brought us here today focuses specifically on absence due to holidays. It is clear that all Members here agree that downtime with family is important: a chance to rest, to spend time together without all the usual pressures, and just to be. I hope some lucky Members have fond memories of holiday trips to my constituency of South Devon.

Research from the Department for Education that was published earlier this year highlighted that a pupil who attends 95% to 100% of the time is twice as likely to achieve English and Maths grade 5 than a pupil who attends 90% to 95% of the time, and 23 times more likely to do so than a pupil who attends less than half the time. Missing even 10% of school time can influence the grades a child is likely to achieve at GCSE. The default position should be that children attend school every day unless exceptional circumstances prevent it, and we must use all available means to encourage that.

Deterrence through fines plays a role in that, but we are concerned about the current culture of reaching immediately for the fine lever. It has lost its impact, as many parents now factor fines into the cost of any term-time holiday they take, entrenching the divide between those who can afford it and those who cannot. Instead of using blanket fines, we would seek to reduce the pressure on local authorities and schools to issue fines for absence, and we would instead encourage a collaborative approach between schools and parents that builds trust and puts the child’s wider interests at the centre. That is key during times such as family illness or bereavement, as other Members have said.

Holidays allow children to learn beyond the classroom and discover new passions, abilities and interests through new experiences and simply being in a different environment. For many families, organising a holiday when schools are closed is not a problem. However, for others, a holiday outside term time is simply not affordable. They cannot pay the enormously hiked holiday prices during high-demand periods. One of my constituents wrote to me that he had to pay £3,000 more to take his grandchildren away during the school holidays than during term time. These extortionate price hikes mean that families cannot afford to go away outside term time, and that unfairly robs children—mainly the children who would benefit most—of new and enriching experiences.

Parents, carers and grandparents should not have to choose between shelling out thousands of pounds on the additional costs of a holiday outside term time and paying a fine. Instead, airlines and travel operators should stop taking advantage of families. Nearly doubling, or more, the price of the same holiday package from one day to the next is exploitative and completely out of line with any surge in demand, as the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) so perfectly illustrated. However, the question of when people can afford to go on holiday is indicative of the wider issue that school absence is closely tied to a family’s financial situation. In the 2024-25 school year, the absence rate for those who were eligible for free school meals was 10.3%. Those who were not eligible were absent nearly half as much, at 5.2%.

The Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have recognised that and are taking steps to resolve it. The roll-out of free breakfast clubs to every state primary school in England and the adoption of the much-loved Liberal Democrat policy of extending free school meal eligibility to children in England whose families claim universal credit will help to address persistent absence. The Government’s provision of those meals and the new breakfast clubs indicate that they acknowledge the correlation between a family’s finances and a child’s attendance. However, I ask the Minister what the Government have done to investigate and relieve holiday-related financial burdens for the children and families that need it most.

Aside from the financial concerns, we should acknowledge that term dates are decided in part by schools, which could therefore be encouraged to organise those dates so that the largest number of families in their communities can benefit from school holidays. For example, some schools might want to shorten the Christmas holiday so that they can offer other holidays for other religious festivals. That would mean that members of other communities would not face fines if they wanted to celebrate together as a family. Being flexible with inset and training days can also enable parents to spend time with children outside school at cheaper times of the year. In areas such as mine, more flexibility would enable families that run tourism and hospitality businesses to have a holiday, which they cannot take in peak seasons.

I turn to the more worrying situation with persistent absences. Since the pandemic, absence from school has become a national crisis, which does significant damage to children’s development and impacts their life chances. The general absence rate in the last academic year was still 2% higher than the rates recorded during the six years before the pandemic, and persistent absence—defined as missing 10% of lessons or more in a year—remained well above the pre-pandemic rate of 10.5%, at a worrying 17.6% in the last academic year.

In many cases, holidays and recreation are not the main reason for parents taking their children out of school; rather, children are forced out of the system by factors outside their control. We see persistent absence from pupils with SEND, young carers and those with mental health conditions. The situation with children with SEND is well illustrated in my constituency: across Devon, the rates of school absence for those with SEND support and those with education, health and care plans have nearly doubled, from 6% and 7.5% respectively in 2016-17 to 11.2% and 13.75% in the last academic year. Nationally, more than 72,000 children with SEND missed half their lessons in the last academic school year—an increase of nearly 9,000, compared with the previous year. That is a direct consequence of inadequate SEND provision and EHCP funding. After years of neglect under the Conservative Government, the system is failing to deliver the outcome that SEND children deserve, pushing them out of school.

We must address the underlying causes of absence constructively, not punitively. No parent should be fined if their child is unable to attend school because of inadequate SEND provision, and no child should be punished for being late because they have the responsibility of caring for a loved one at home. The Liberal Democrats have long called for measures that will help to encourage all those children back into the classroom, including having a qualified mental health professional in every primary and secondary school, and giving local authorities extra funding to reduce the amount that schools have to pay towards the cost of EHCPs.

The central point is that we must first understand why a child is not attending school, whether it is the unaffordability of holidays outside term time, SEND, young caring responsibilities, religious holidays, bereavement or other factors. That understanding must be the starting point before any further action is taken. The solution to this petition and to school absence more generally is not to compel children to attend school with the threat of punishment, but to ensure that they are genuinely able to attend. We should not force them to learn, but enable them, whether by tackling the exploitative pricing structures of travel companies and airlines or removing structural barriers to regular attendance for SEND children, disadvantaged students and carers. We must think in a much bigger way about how to tackle these issues. Fining parents should be a last resort, and should be only one of a suite of options for local authorities and schools to work with parents and encourage the best attendance possible for all our children.

17:33

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and to take part in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his opening remarks on this important topic. He spoke eloquently on behalf of the 181,000 signatories of this petition, including the 208 in Meriden and Solihull East. He rightly pointed out that holidays are valuable: they provide not just rest and relaxation but the opportunity to experience new cultures and expand one’s horizons. A number of Members made similar remarks, so holidays are clearly important.

Although I do not advocate price controls—I believe in the value of the market—I thought that the remarks of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the family friendly charter were interesting. I hope that companies such as Jet2 and Center Parcs are listening to this debate and thinking about how they can be more family friendly.

School is vital for every child. It equips young people with the knowledge they need to go into the world of work, whatever it may be, and contribute to society. It also plays a pivotal role in teaching young people to socialise, form relationships, take personal responsibility for their actions and behave appropriately. Put simply, school is not just about getting good grades; it is there to prepare us for life. Every single school day missed is a lesson not learned, whether that is an academic lesson or a lesson about life itself.

Across the House, we want our constituents to be able to send their children to the very best schools. I firmly believe that part of that is about ensuring that headteachers create an environment where all children are keen to get into a classroom to learn. We can, however, be in no doubt that our education system is facing a major challenge in school attendance. Although it is welcome news that the overall absence rate has fallen slightly for the most recent academic year for which there is data, absence rates remain uncomfortably high compared with pre-pandemic levels. All of us in the House have an obligation to help reverse that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley rightly pointed out, we have only to look at the catastrophic effects of school closures during the covid-19 pandemic to see the consequences of persistent absenteeism.

The current picture of absenteeism in schools is certainly challenging. In England, the overall absence rate fell to an estimated 6.9% in 2024-25, down from 7.1% in 2023-24, although still above the pre-covid rate of 4.7%. Data for persistent absence also shows a downward trend, but remains high at 18.7% in 2024-25, compared with 21.2% in 2022-23. Any child who is persistently absent from school is one child too many, losing out on vital hours in the classroom that they cannot get back. It is in that context that we must address the petition, which seeks to allow parents to take their children out of school. Even more worrying than just those headline statistics is the fact that an increasing number of people now seem to believe that it does not matter if a child is absent from school. That is not all parents, but certainly some. The impression that time spent in the classroom does not equip students for their future stands in clear contrast to the wealth of evidence that shows that children who are absent from school experience worse outcomes later in life.

As the Department for Education’s research on the link between attendance and attainment has shown, pupils who missed only 10 days of school in year 6, which the petition wants to allow, were 25% less likely to meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with those who attended school nearly every day. At GCSE level, that trend is even more dramatic, with pupils who missed only 10 days of school in year 11 being 50% less likely to achieve a grade 5 in Maths and English than those who attended school nearly every day.

Those trends show just how damaging even marginally lower rates of school attendance can be for pupils. It should serve as a stark warning to those who would dismiss being absent from school for a few days as no major problem. It is not just grades that suffer as a result, either; children who start to fall behind in school find it difficult to make up for that lost time and catch up with what other pupils have already learned, only worsening a problem that starts with just a few days of being out of school. With that in mind, can the Minister provide an update on what the Government are doing to reverse the trend of school absences?

Attending school irregularly can lead to lower earnings later in life, a higher chance of unemployment and, in the most extreme circumstances, persistent offending in adulthood. That is why it must always be a problem when children are not in school when they need to be, no matter how innocent a few days off may seem. It is important that we make clear that persistent absence is not acceptable. We cannot create a world where absence is deemed as the norm, because that will likely lead to young people seeing it as acceptable in the workplace. Not only will it harm a young person’s job prospects; it will lead to lower productivity, which harms our economy. Does the Minister therefore have any data that highlights the link between persistent absence and the nearly 1 million young people who are not in employment or education?

Wanting to work from home with the children or go on holiday may appear to be far less serious reasons for absence from school than social issues, but any day missed has the same effect on children: to deny them the education that leads to success later in life. There will, of course, always be instances where allowances need to be made for children to be absent from school, particularly when bereavement is involved. I have had to deal with that as a constituency Member of Parliament, but headteachers already have discretion to grant leave in exceptional circumstances such as those. Both schools and the Government must always be clear that some issues cannot be deemed as an acceptable circumstance, and the headteacher should have the discretion to decide that. Although some fines for unauthorised absences may seem harsh, it is even harsher to deny families the truth about the effects of taking children out of school and setting their children up for failure later in life. Does the Minister have any evidence on whether fines work to improve absence rates?

Getting a grip on the problem of school attendance and returning rates to pre-pandemic levels require a concerted effort across the Government, schools and wider society, and I am proud of the work that the previous Government did to help achieve that important ambition. The previous Government recognised that improving attendance is essential for a variety of reasons, and that, for this to happen, we must ensure that school is somewhere every child wants to be, so they can feel safe and ready to learn in an orderly, calm and supportive environment.

The previous Government instigated a major national drive to improve school attendance through attendance hubs. Thanks to the Conservatives, there were 18 new attendance hubs across six regions, bringing the total to 32 and helping nearly 2,000 schools to tackle persistent absence. That included investment of up to £15 million over three years—providing direct, intensive support to more than 10,000 persistent and severely absent pupils and their families. There were 380,000 fewer pupils who were persistently absent or not attending school in ’22-23 than there were in ’21-22.

We were committed to working closely with schools and local authorities to drive up attendance rates, and we had a six-point plan to deal with some of the problems. That included requiring schools to have an attendance policy, appointing attendance champions and expecting local authorities to hold termly meetings with schools to agree individual plans for at-risk children. In addition, we attempted to tighten legislation, through the Schools Bill, to put pressure on local authorities to improve school attendance, requiring all schools to have attendance policies and extending the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene. What consideration has the Minister given to reviving some of those policies to help bring down absence? Labour said that persistent absence is the first barrier it will seek to break, so can the Minister update us on the progress on that and how it is being measured?

The previous Government also made schools share attendance data to help to combat low attendance, including a national framework for parental fines. Statutory guidance from the Department for Education ensured that improving education was everybody’s business, breaking down barriers to accessing education. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which has been heavily criticised by Opposition Members, contains a duty on local authorities to maintain registers of children who are not in school, as well as a duty on parents to provide certain information on those registered. Will the Minister update the House on the Bill’s progress and on when we can expect to see the consultation on the register?

We cannot allow a culture of school absence to become acceptable, and Members across the Chamber, as well as people outside Parliament, have spoken about a number of ideas for dealing with the problem of persistent absence from school. Wider debate on this issue is obviously necessary. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

17:42

[The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his thoughtful and nuanced introduction to the debate. It was brilliant to hear that he consulted a whole range of parents, headteachers and others. He set us up for what has been a very thoughtful discussion, with views from Members on all sides of the debate.

We have heard how passionately people feel about the importance of holidays to families. Many families, for a variety of reasons, wish to avoid busier and more expensive periods. I thank Natalie Elliott for her work on raising these issues and for ensuring that they could be debated here. A number of young people have joined us in the Public Gallery—during their half-term—and I commend them for being part of the discussion.

[Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that the blame should sit not with hard-working parents who just want affordable family time, or with school leaders who want pupils not to miss out on education, but with the predatory travel companies we have heard about, which jack up their prices when term time is finished?

[Georgia Gould]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and all hon. Members who have done copious research on the various travel companies and prices at different times. I hope that those companies watch the debate and hear the strength of feeling. The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), made a suggestion that I welcome and will explore further, because it is important that they hear about the impact on many families.

We have heard about not only the importance of family life, but how critical school attendance is for children and young people. Sadly, we still face an absence epidemic in this country. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), has been collegiate today, so I will point out only gently that had the Conservative Government listened to their education recovery commissioner and invested what was needed to support children post covid, we might not be in such a perilous position, with one in five children persistently absent, missing the equivalent of a day each fortnight.

We are committed to tackling the problem. As we have heard from many, absence is one of the biggest barriers to opportunity, damaging learning, health and wellbeing, future earnings and employment. Each day of lost learning can do serious harm. That is why we will not allow pupils to miss 10 days of school without good reason. However, that does not mean that we are not committed to working alongside families. This Government introduced the national framework for penalty notices, which defines a “support first” approach, working alongside families.

The shadow Minister asked what the Government have done to reduce absence. Thanks to hard work and partnership, there has been progress: more than 5 million more days were spent in school last year than the year before. That is the biggest improvement in a decade, but we remain a long way off pre-pandemic levels of attendance.

If children are not in school, it does not matter how effective or well supported teaching and learning are; they will not benefit. We are working hard to ensure that school is the best place to be for every child. We heard about some of the interventions on the cost of living crisis, free breakfast clubs, the extension of free school meals and the 30 hours of free childcare, which have made a meaningful difference for families. We are also supporting better mental health through access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and inclusion for children with special educational needs and disabilities within mainstream settings right across age ranges.

We want to continue to work with families of children with special educational needs. We heard about how those families face some of the biggest issues with persistent absence and about how important that partnership is. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and her constituent, whose petition led to this debate, to talk about that in more detail, given the importance of hearing from families as we think about support for young people with SEND.

I have to admit to being somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) championing the views of parents. I had wondered whether he agreed with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) that SEND provision is

“being hijacked by…parents who are abusing the system, taking it for a ride.”

I wholeheartedly disagree with that and want to work with parents.

[Linsey Farnsworth]

On that point, is the Minister also concerned about local authorities such as Derbyshire county council, whose leader is parroting the sentiments of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) about “overdiagnosis” of SEND? All the families in my constituency that face SEND issues are at their wits’ end trying to get the support that they need, against the backdrop of a council that, on the face of it, does not believe in their plight.

[Georgia Gould]

I am very concerned by that. I welcome the fact that so many more young people are being diagnosed and getting their needs met. In previous generations, they might never have received that support. I am very concerned about that language.

I also want to echo the points that have been made across the Chamber about the strength of the evidence on attendance. Recent research shows that just an extra 10 days out of school halves a pupil’s chance of getting a grade 5 in English and maths, compared with a similar child with strong attendance. We have also seen research showing that children who are persistently absent during their GCSEs earn £10,000 a year less by the age of 28. Based on the most recent census data, a child who misses 10 days of school each year for a two-week holiday, and also has the average number of days off for sickness and medical appointments, will have missed the equivalent of a full year of school by the time they finish year 11 at age 16. That is worth repeating: a child who takes a fortnight’s term-time holiday each year, and also has the average number of days off due to illness, will miss a full school year over the course of their education. We should be very concerned about that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley also made a point about consistency of application. The national framework is designed to improve consistency. I hope that new data in January will tell us about our progress in removing the postcode lottery. In the year prior to the introduction of the framework, 26 out of 153 local authorities accounted for half of all penalty notices issued. Our work is intended to reduce that inconsistency.

There were a range of questions about flexibility in term time. Schools and local authorities have flexibility to plan term dates and to hold inset days and other occasional days at less busy times of the year, which can help families plan breaks at times that suit them. I know, for example, of councils that have trialled a two-week half-term in October or slightly shifted their summer holidays. Those flexibilities exist at the moment.

We also heard of concerns about the ability of young people with special educational needs to travel at busy periods. I am aware of steps taken by the travel industry to improve their experience, with airports and airlines increasing their autism awareness and producing procedures for affected families. That is an important area to explore further.

I thank all Members for their contributions, and I hope we can continue this conversation. I acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed during the debate. The Government are determined to support children to attend school. As we heard, lack of attendance is one of the biggest barriers to supporting children to achieve and thrive, and it particularly impacts those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We will continue to work with parents, teachers, schools and local authorities to raise attendance levels and support opportunity.

17:52

[Robbie Moore]

On behalf of Natalie Elliott, the lead petitioner, I thank all the Members who spoke in the debate and the 181,000 people who signed the petition that led to it. It is clear that we all agree that good quality education is vital, but so too is family time. Good quality family time can be enriching, holistic and deeply important to a child’s wellbeing and learning experiences.

It is clear that many decent, hard-working families are being penalised by the state through a system that has been widely recognised, including in many contributions to the debate, as ineffective. It simply relies on penalties imposed on incredibly hard-working parents. The system is not fit for purpose. I therefore advocate for the Government to look at how it can be adapted and to recognise, as contributors to the debate have, that SEND children are particularly impacted by the current system.

Let me say finally that academies have flexibility in setting their term dates. I advocate for the Government to consider how academies can be empowered to use the powers they already have, and how local authority schools can use those flexibilities too.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 700047 relating to holidays during school term time.

17:54

Sitting suspended.

Statutory Maternity and Paternity Pay

Monday 27th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse in the Chair]

16:30

[Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 715292 relating to statutory maternity and paternity pay.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and a privilege to open this very busy debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. Calling for statutory maternity and paternity pay to match the national living wage, the petition before us has attracted a great deal of public support from families who want Parliament to look again at how we help parents in the first months of their child’s life. I thank the creator of the petition, Grace Carter, and the thousands who signed it for prompting this important discussion.

The petition highlights a simple contrast that many parents experience. The national living wage is meant to ensure a basic standard of living for workers but, during maternity or paternity leave, state support falls well below that level. At present, statutory maternity pay after the first six weeks equates to just £4.99 an hour, compared with the national living wage of £12.21—55% lower than the income that the law defines as the minimum required to live on. It is hard to justify there being a minimum income for work but not for caring for newborns, and families really feel that gap in their pocket.

In response to the petition, the Government have stated that statutory payments are designed to provide “a measure of…security” rather than a full wage.

[Afzal Khan (Manchester Rusholme) (Lab)]

A shocking 37% of children and young people in Greater Manchester live in poverty, yet maternity pay remains far below basic living standards, as my hon. Friend just said. Does he agree that raising statutory maternity pay to a liveable wage would help to tackle the crisis of child poverty in the UK and give children a better start in life?

[Jacob Collier]

I agree, and those are some of the themes that I will come on to. We know, from parents such as Grace and from the stories that we will hear throughout today’s debate, that the current system leaves huge gaps and does not support families or children in the way it should.

[Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)]

My constituents Stacy, Caitlin, Julia and Alison maintain that the current rates of maternity and paternity pay are woefully inadequate. One advised me that they delayed having children until they were financially secure, and it is unlikely that they will consider having a second child. Does my hon. Friend therefore agree that, while introducing parental leave as a day one right is a welcome first step, the review of parental leave should include a significant rise in the rates of statutory pay to at least the level of the national living wage, and six weeks for dads on 100% pay? Current pay is far below basic living standards, and families in my constituency cannot afford leave.

[Jacob Collier]

My hon. Friend is a great champion for his constituents. Many of the issues that he notes will come out in the debate today. He is right to say that the Government have begun the first ever full review of parental leave and pay, which is a serious and welcome step.

[Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for leading this debate. Many of my constituents, including Helen, Lauren, Laura and Kayleigh, have written to me, and Helen asked me to raise this point in particular. When she went on maternity leave, she needed support from her partner. One in four women has a caesarean birth, and the physical recovery can often take six weeks, yet their partner must return to work after only two weeks’ paternity pay. That is why we need the wide-ranging review. It is heartbreaking for mothers and fathers, who are left in a difficult position, with mothers sometimes unable even to lift and carry their young child.

[Jacob Collier]

I know that that is the experience of many parents, and I am sure that the Government will look at it as part of the review that they are undertaking.

Under the current arrangements, a mother or primary adopter can receive maternity pay for up to 39 weeks. For the first six weeks, that pay is 90% of average weekly earnings. For the following 33 weeks, it falls to a flat statutory rate, or 90% of earnings—whichever is lower. Statutory paternity pay lasts for two weeks at the same flat rate.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

The current support for multiple birth families is inadequate. Samantha from Wincanton is a mother of twins, and after giving birth she received the same statutory maternity pay as a parent of one child, despite having to pay double for the cost of essential childcare equipment and so on. Does the hon. Member agree that there should be financial equality for parents of twins and that the Government’s forthcoming parental leave review must address that disparity?

[Jacob Collier]

The hon. Lady has highlighted an area that needs to be addressed.

One of the starkest, most glaring inequalities in the system is that dads who are self-employed or freelance are not eligible for anything. That is something that the Government should look at.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

Another glaring missing piece is that, as well as supporting mothers and fathers, it is important that we support those who suffer the tragic loss of a baby. Will my hon. Friend therefore join me in welcoming our Government’s commitment to introduce a right for workers, including those who experience pregnancy loss before 24 weeks, to take time away from work to grieve?

[Jacob Collier]

Yes, absolutely. My hon. Friend is a real champion of his constituents, and I too welcome the Government’s commitment.

Shared parental leave was designed to bring flexibility, but in practice very few families can afford to take it at the current levels. The House of Commons Library notes that only 5% of eligible fathers take it up, with most saying that they cannot afford it. The United Kingdom offers one of the longest periods of maternity leave in the developed world, yet one of the lowest payment rates. The outcome is predictable: mothers often return to work earlier than they would like, fathers and partners take little to no time off and the unequal division of care that begins at birth shapes the patterns of earnings and progression for the years afterwards.

Recent research by the University of Bath and its partners, Working Families and the Fatherhood Institute, tested the impact of a more generous and flexible leave offer for fathers and modelled what would happen if paternity leave were extended from two to six weeks, to be taken flexibly within the first year and paid at a meaningful rate. The findings were striking. Better pay produced much higher take-up by fathers, improved wellbeing for both parents, maintained a closer connection of women to the workforce and lowered staff turnover for employers. When only jobs and earnings were considered, the policy still brought a net gain to the economy; when wellbeing and family outcomes were added, those benefits rose sharply. In every scenario, families and employers were better off when parental leave was properly paid.

Those are not just numbers. They mean families spending real time together, children getting a better start and businesses keeping valued staff. The evidence is clear: when leave is paid at a level parents can afford, everyone benefits.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

I have been contacted by a number of constituents concerned about the requirement to have worked continuously with the same employer to qualify for statutory maternity pay. Women who change jobs shortly before pregnancy are excluded from statutory maternity pay. They miss out on the six weeks at 90% of average weekly earnings and instead receive a lower maternity allowance. That creates a financial strain, forcing people to return to work early and harming the wellbeing of mothers and children. Does my hon. Friend agree that that issue must be addressed and that we need to provide fair support for all working mothers?

[Jacob Collier]

I agree. The day one rights that the Government will introduce will be helpful in the context that my hon. Friend sets out. Ministers have rightly said that they want to remove the barriers that discourage people from having the children that they would like to, and parental leave and pay are at the centre of that effort. If families feel that taking leave means that they cannot get by, they will delay decisions. We know that the support needs to be in place so that they can make those choices freely. Changing the system is therefore about supporting families and maternal health and sustaining a strong economy that is built on fairness and security.

[Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

This is a valuable and important debate. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that as well as having new policies, we have to know that they are being implemented properly and fairly, and that therefore it will be necessary to require large employers to publish their policies and data in the same way that they have for gender pay? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

[Jacob Collier]

The hon. Member can hear from the Chamber that there is support for that position. I am sure the Minister has heard that.

Trade unions have welcomed the Government’s review—I declare an interest here, as a proud Unison and GMB member. The GMB says that it is pleased that the Government are listening, and calls for 12 months’ maternity pay, stronger protection against discrimination and fairer rights for fathers and partners, including six weeks’ paternity leave on equal pay. The union’s model parental leave agreement also advocates paid emergency bereavement leave and carer’s leave, recognising that decent parental pay and leave boosts retention and wellbeing. The Trades Union Congress, representing over 5 million workers, warns that the current system entrenches inequality by excluding many women, the self-employed and those in insecure work.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend knows that under the current system far fewer dads take parental leave, which worsens the gender pay gap. In the five years after becoming mothers, many workers lose up to £65,000-worth of earnings. It is clear that better paid, longer and more usable partner leave is beneficial for all families. Does he agree that in their review, the Government should look at examples such as Spain, with its 16 weeks at 100% pay, to see what progress Britain could make?

[Jacob Collier]

I do agree. I think the Government will look at those international comparisons and where Britain is in the league tables.

The TUC seeks day one rights, individual entitlements to paid leave and higher pay rates so that all families can benefit, including single kinship, adoptive and surrogate parents and those in atypical roles.

[Lisa Smart (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that the Government’s ongoing review into parental leave is a cracking opportunity for them to fill a gap that currently exists for those who are self-employed and seeking to grow their family by adoption? Currently they are not entitled to maternity allowance or maternity or paternity pay. Does he agree that that would be a very good thing to come out of the parental leave review?

[Jacob Collier]

Yes; the hon. Lady highlights a stark inequality that the Government need to address.

Behind every statistic is a story. The recent campaign by Pregnant Then Screwed gathered testimony from families across the UK who face the brutal consequences of the current, inadequate system. Laura from the west midlands had to return to work just 11 weeks after giving birth because she could not afford the mortgage repayments on her low maternity pay. She said that she had been

“overwhelmed with guilt over the limited bonding time”

that she had had in those early months due to returning to work, and it had greatly impacted her mental health.

Izzy from Chester, recovering from an emergency caesarean section, was left alone in pain, unable to feed herself and her baby. Her wound later ruptured and became infected. She believes that that would not have happened if her husband had been at home longer. Neya from London told us about the aftermath of her traumatic birth and its impact. She slept on the floor for weeks and was unable to function. She said that she could barely think about how she would have coped if her husband had not been around. Another parent, who wanted to remain anonymous, shared a reflection that captures the long-term cost of the current system:

“I’m struggling to see how we can possibly have a second child because of all of this. I’m very happy, grateful and content with one but it feels like the choice is starting to be taken out of our hands.”

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that kinship carers, people who adopt children and foster carers should be included in any review? We can give those people—the heroes of our communities—as much time off as we want, but they need some financial stability during that period, and the £4.99 that he mentioned before quite simply is not enough.

[Jacob Collier]

I agree, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who is a long-time campaigner on these issues. I know that that is something that the Government have heard him say and will continue to hear him say.

We know there are huge costs involved. A nursery place for an older child at this time can cost up to £1,200 a month for three days a week, while the average mortgage is between £800 and £1,000 a month. Add in household bills, food bills and transport costs, and it becomes painfully clear how impossible it is to survive on the statutory maternity pay of £4.99 an hour.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has articulately laid out the reasons to reform the current system. Does he agree that the best way to do that would be for the Government to deliver the new deal for working people in full, including reforming parental leave? Families deserve fair pay and a real choice to care for their children, without financial strain.

[Jacob Collier]

I do agree, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. Every change must be responsible with public money and it must be manageable for employers. The evidence suggests that that can be achieved. Changes can be phased in over time, so that payroll systems and budgets can adjust.

However, it is crucial that the cost of this reform is not simply passed on to employers, who are already facing rising costs. As the petitioner has argued, this change should be about Government investment, recognising the economic and social value of supporting families, just as we do with other forms of social security.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for boosting maternity and paternity pay. Does he agree that if we are to give meaningful choice to families about whether they would like to spend more time at home in the early months of a child’s life—shown to have real developmental benefits for children—or go back into the workplace, we must address the fact that, as he has set out so clearly, maternity pay, paternity pay and shared parental leave pay is less than half the minimum wage? It is not excessive, as the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), has previously stated.

[Jacob Collier]

I agree. It is quite stark that lots of parties are represented here today, but apart from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), there is not one Member of the official Opposition here.

Ultimately, this issue is about the country that we choose to be. The first months of a child’s life are not a private indulgence; they are a public good. When parents are able to be present, children flourish, mothers recover, fathers bond and families become the firm foundation of a stronger, healthier society. When that support is absent, we all pay the price—not immediately, but inevitably. This issue is not merely a question of fairness; it is a matter of foresight and basic national good.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

I am not quite sure how to contribute to this debate: I am married to a doctor who is an obstetrician and gynaecologist; I am a triplet; and I have an 18-month-old daughter, who was born just three weeks before the general election was called last year. I am never sure which way to pivot. I want to make the macro argument, which is that our birth rate as a country is between 1.41 and 1.56, depending on what is being looked at. Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a pure and very simple economic argument to making sure that our country is growing its population from the grass roots? If we fail to do that, the cost in the long run will be considerable.

[Jacob Collier]

Absolutely. I know that my hon. Friend has a lot of experience in his own family to bring to this debate, and I wonder if his daughter is watching it. A parental leave system that works for every family, for employers and freelancers, and for single parents and kinship carers alike is not a cost to be endured but an investment in our shared future. It is in that spirit that I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate tonight.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Order. I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called in the debate. It is a very popular debate, for good reasons. I will impose an informal time limit of two minutes per speaker. I intend to call the Front Benchers at 6.58 pm, so you can make the calculations yourselves. As we get further into the debate, we will see how much time there is left at the end, to be fair to colleagues. Please keep any interventions as short as possible.

18:19

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse, and I congratulate the Petitions Committee and all the petitioners on bringing this issue forward for debate.

I will home in on the specific issue of self-employed adopters. There is real inequality built into the system, where self-employed adopters are not able to access the pay or even the allowances that parents can. When someone takes a new child into their home through adoption, there are significant challenges, and it is important that they can build stability, attachment and security for that child. But without the resources to do that, many adopters have made the positive choice not to adopt a second child, and others in the process are not able to embark further on the journey. That is denying children access to a family, when we have so many children—over 80,000—in care at the moment. It is absolutely vital that we change the system to ensure that we give those parents, at least, equivalent and sufficient adoption pay.

Therefore, I ask that the Government engage with and listen to the work done on this issue by organisations such as Adoption UK and Home for Good. They have identified that although there are voluntary arrangements at the moment, they are simply not working, and we need statutory arrangements for adopters. Only 10% of adopters had their social workers tell them about the voluntary arrangements to access resources from a local authority, which are given on a discretionary basis. In fact, we found that 34% of local authorities did not even have a policy for how they would give that pay to adoptive parents. It is not for local authorities; we need statutory provision in place, and I trust that the Minister will take on that cause.

18:21

[Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. When a child is born the world changes, not just for the parents but for the child, whose entire development begins right there in those first precious moments. The period from conception to age two—what we call the first 1,001 days—is the most critical window for brain development and emotional security. That profound scientific truth forms the ultimate moral argument for generous, equitable maternity and paternity pay. This is not a conversation about employment benefits; it is a conversation about human development and our country’s future.

The foundation for a child’s future health, wellbeing and capacity to learn is laid down in those first 1,001 days, and the very first days and weeks are perhaps the most vital. Why? Because that is the time when the baby’s brain makes billions of connections, shaped by their environment. The primary input they need is secure attachment, which comes from a loving, available and responsive parent. Let me be clear: as many in this room will know, those first few days, weeks and months are hard. I am fed up with mothers being treated as second-class citizens.

For the mother, maternity pay is crucial for physical and mental recovery from childbirth, to allow for uninterrupted bonding and to establish feeding routines, which are the cornerstones of that secure attachment. It ensures that exhaustion and financial anxiety do not hijack this delicate foundational relationship. For the father or non-birthing parent, that early time is just as essential. Their presence facilitates critical family adjustment, supports the birthing parent’s recovery and enables their own essential bonding—a key factor in reducing post-natal depression for both parents.

When parental pay is too low, parents are forced back to work too early. They are forced to prioritise their pay over their child’s neurological and emotional development. Historically, our policies have had a clear gender bias. Maternity pay, perhaps somewhat improving, still often sees the mother bear the financial penalty of taking long leave. Paternity pay, however, is also often a token gesture—a week or two at statutory minimum—sending a damaging message that the role of the father or birthing partner is secondary. The moral failure has consequences; it perpetuates gender inequality, penalises the mother’s career, entrenches her as the default primary carer and contributes directly to the gender pay gap. It limits the father’s role—it effectively blocks fathers who wish to be highly involved from the start, hindering their bond with the child.

The moral solution is equal, well-paid, non-transferable parental leave for both parents. We must elevate the financial value of the mother’s or father’s presence from a mere detriment to an essential contribution, thereby normalising co-parenting and supporting the mother. Parental pay is not a cost to the economy; it is a strategic investment in our human capital. When we support parents during that first 1,001 days, we are investing in our public health. Secure attachment leads to improved mental health outcomes for both parents and children, reducing the long-term strain on healthcare and social services. A stronger workforce in which parents feel supported would mean that they return to work more focused, loyal and productive. Generous parental leave is a key tool for talent attraction and retention.

18:25

[Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I commend the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his eloquent and emotionally intelligent speech. Just over a year ago, the campaign group The Dad Shift came the Parliament. I was grilled by teachers and students from Europa School in my Oxfordshire constituency about my support for better paternity leave and pay. They told me that, at two weeks off at less than half the minimum wage, the UK is among the worst in Europe for provision. That is unacceptable, so it is welcome that the Government’s parental leave and pay review’s objectives include ensuring

“sufficient resources and time away from work to support new and expectant parents’ wellbeing”

and supporting

“parents to make balanced childcare choices that work for their family”.

[Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)]

I have heard from many parents in the South Cotswolds whose recent experiences do not fit neatly into the Government’s model of pregnancy. Whether it is having twins, post-natal depression or managing debt, every family’s situation is different. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government’s current system lacks the flexibility to accommodate these different circumstances, and that that needs to be addressed in the review?

[Olly Glover]

My hon. Friend makes the very liberal point that we should always remember that everyone’s individual and family circumstances are different; it is important that the British state recognises that individuality, rather than expecting everyone to fit on a convenient spreadsheet.

To make some of the needed improvements, both the rate at which paternity pay is paid and the length of leave must be addressed. Currently, fathers and non-birthing parents are not supported to take time off from work because they cannot afford to do so. A large number of constituents have written to me on this topic. I am sure that many more, who have not had the time to consider writing to me, are also deeply affected by this, as shown by the large number of signatories to the petition that has triggered this debate.

Let me repeat some of the points made to me by my constituents. The low rate of statutory pay for both parents has huge financial implications for new parents, especially those in single-income households. Living on so little during one of the most vulnerable periods of their lives is a significant issue.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

The Government’s stated first objective in this review is to support the physical and mental health of women after they have given birth to a child. One cannot overestimate the amount of mental stress caused by living in poverty or without enough resources for one’s family. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Liberal Democrat policy to double statutory shared parental pay to £350 a week is the right move?

[Olly Glover]

That is one of many excellent Liberal Democrat measures that we have proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) will tell us more about that, and I do not want to steal too much more of her thunder.

Polling for The Dad Shift and Movember has found that the financial pressure is wrecking the health of new parents and their families, with more than half of new dads reporting mental and physical health consequences. Some 61% become less present with their families, and 57% are put off having more children. Although we in the Liberal Democrats may not be able to go quite as far as is asked for in this e-petition, we nevertheless support a number of significant changes. My hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park will say a lot more.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

I remind Members to please stick to the informal time limit. If they do not, I will have to make it a formal time limit.

18:28

[Ms Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank Grace and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier).

I want to make a speech on behalf of every parent who is right now checking their bank balance, sitting in the back of a dingy soft-play centre, weeping silently. They are looking at us and wondering—screaming—“When will Parliament get it?” They will understand the irony that we are having this debate during half term. It sounds impossible when said out loud, but we in this country appear to think that when someone has a baby, they should live on less than the national minimum wage.

Of course this petition has merit—it speaks to the problems that begin at birth and lock in inequality throughout people’s lives. If someone is on universal credit, working and pregnant, we will claw back some money just to make their life even more complicated. Meanwhile, those who are entrepreneurs or self-employed have no help at all. Little wonder that Maternity Action shows that motherhood is often associated with debt—and it does not stop there. Let us be clear: this is not about taking time off, but about taking on another job with a very expensive clientele. It is estimated that it costs £406 a week to look after a newborn baby, and what if parents have another one? Do the maths, and realise why this place has to up its game.

This is not about counterproductive measures; it is about families. People attack breakfast clubs, but breakfast clubs are not about the state looking after people’s kids; they help parents who would otherwise find it impossible to hold down a job where they are expected to be in a meeting at 9 o’clock.

Affordable childcare is not yet affordable. A constituent who is just about to have a second child wrote to me to say that even with the 30 hours and the tax-free allowance his family still has to find £3,000 a month. It does not stack up, and that is before we get to the cost of the half-term clubs. Parents are trying to find an extra 200 quid this week, while still dealing with the credit card bill from the summer holidays.

Above all, the way we do maternity leave locks in inequality for mums, who get written off by the motherhood penalty and get lumbered with the childcare, and locks out dads from the role of second parent. We do not have time to talk about issues affecting single parents, children with special educational needs and disabled parents.

The review is great, but we have the evidence. We do not need to wait to do something now to help all those people screaming in the soft play centre. We could bring in statutory pay changes or an equal six-week right at 90%. We had a chance to do that in the Lords in the Employment Rights Bill, and we lost it by seven votes. There are interim measures that we could take. I hope the Minister will hear this cry of pain, because this week of all weeks, parents are begging for pay day, worried that they are letting down their kid. Above all, they are asking us in politics to help them.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Jim Shannon will still have two minutes, and then I will impose a formal time limit of 90 seconds.

18:31

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

You are very kind, Mrs Hobhouse; thank you very much. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship. I congratulate the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) on setting the scene. This issue affects every single constituency in the United Kingdom.

When babies are born, it is a time of beauty. Learning to navigate a wee family is so precious, but the reality is that when parents cocoon their baby, the bills need to be paid, and they find themselves outlaying more money than ever. They have to buy nappies, new clothes, the pram, the crib, the car seat; it sets them back a substantial amount. Although it may seem that mum and dad being on 90% for the first weeks is okay, the fact is that they are under pressure. The mortgage, the rent obligation, the car insurance and the car payments all still need to be paid on time.

Little wonder that the 2025 Maternity Action survey revealed that 90% of respondents worried about money during their maternity leave. The financial strain has a significant negative impact on women’s mental wellbeing. A 2025 Unison survey found that 57% of respondents felt pressure to return to work earlier than they would have liked.

Some mums are told that the most important time of their lives are the early years with their baby, and yet there can be no doubt that mums are under financial strain right from the outset. That does worry me. Mum guilt is a real thing; it is not just something that people talk about, a thing in a paper or a motto. They worry about letting their child down.

In Northern Ireland, the DUP has recognised the need for childcare and has introduced a very successful scheme. I am sure the Minister is aware of it. It gives some help at a time when it is needed.

Twelve weeks of severely reduced pay will not enable the mum to get the baby into their own wee routine, and ensure her physical and emotional health is back at the level needed to return to work. I urge the Government and the Minister to work on this issue, and recognise that there cannot be stable homes if parents with newborns are wondering whether to turn the heat on or whether to just have vegetable soup for the fourth meal in a row. That should not be the case. Let us change that and give families the time they need to bond.

18:33

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

There is a certain irony in the fact that last year I was given a minute in this Chamber to speak about the inadequacy of paternity leave, and this year I have been given 90 seconds.

Two years ago today, I was beginning my journey as a first-time parent. That means that it is about two years since I last had a good night’s sleep. If the Minister would like to give my little boy a birthday present today, on his second birthday, he could extend parental leave, and paternity leave in particular, so that if my son chooses to have children in the future, he can have some time with his child.

It is simply not right that fathers receive only two weeks’ statutory leave. That denies fathers a chance to bond with their children and perpetuates the outdated stereotype that women are expected to be the primary caregiver. Importantly, the way that women give birth in this country has changed: about 40% of all births in England are now carried out by caesarean section, which has a recovery time of up to six weeks. Why is a father expected to return to work, leaving his partner with a newborn baby when she is still recovering from major surgery and is unable to drive or even lift her child safely? We should be encouraging fathers to spend time at home with their partner.

I was proud to sit on the Employment Rights Bill Committee earlier this year, and to play a role in extending paternity leave rights to more dads in my constituency. But we must go further. As a country, we are getting older; we need more people to have children. Will the Minister confirm that the review of parental leave and pay will, at the very least, consider increasing statutory paternity leave to six weeks, commit to reforming shared parental leave so that it is more attractive to parents, and deliver on our manifesto pledge to give every child in Gloucester the best start in life?

18:35

[Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. The UK’s statutory paternity leave offer is one of the least generous and lowest in Europe, at £187 per week. In fact, the TUC reports that half of families struggle financially when a parent takes paternity leave—as does research from Pregnant Then Screwed. Research showed that 70% of fathers did not take their leave due to the cost. Statutory maternity pay is also provided at the same rate after the first six weeks, an amount significantly less than the national living wage of around £488 per week. If someone is self-employed and a man, they get nothing.

My constituent Tamara Morris is currently preparing to go off on maternity leave. The amount that Tamara expects to receive will not even cover her half of the household bills. She is really worried about how her family are going to cope. The UK Government could have rectified that during the Employment Rights Bill. I pay respect to my Plaid Cymru colleague, Baroness Smith of Llanfaes, for her efforts in the other place, pushing to increase the rate of statutory parental pay.

If child poverty is really a priority for this Government, then they must consider the impact of poor parental pay on the first few months of a child’s life. I call on the UK Government to address the issues we have set out today, and finally put them right.

18:36

[Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for his introduction to this debate. I know from my own mailbag the importance of statutory maternity and paternity pay across Bexleyheath and Crayford. My constituents have pointed out to me that the evidence shows that the current situation with both leave and pay for new parents is bad for everyone—mums, dads, kids and society as a whole.

I will briefly say again what I said last year: I accept that we have moved forward since my twins were born 12 years ago, but my experience of my children being born nine weeks early, my wife having a C-section, one of my children being diagnosed with cerebral palsy at 12 days old, and me working through the whole six weeks of them being in special care because I was not entitled to a day of paternity pay, continues to live with me. We have seen neonatal care benefit and some benefit in paternity pay. But we must continue to battle for better rights for parents.

One in three dads do not take their paternity leave because they cannot afford to. The system is complicated and we do not always give people the support that they need. We must modernise to deliver for today’s families. A survey undertaken by Maternity Action has shown that of 1,000 new mothers, the majority have had to resort to credit cards or loans to finance their maternity leave. Over half have said that they have had to return to work early, as it is impossible to support themselves and their new baby. It is therefore vital that we ensure that new mothers have access to the support they need. They should all be supported to focus on their own wellbeing and their baby’s health, both during pregnancy and after birth.

18:38

[Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the petitioners for bringing this important issue before Parliament. Having a baby should never be what pushes a family into financial hardship. But for too many new parents, statutory maternity and paternity pay simply do not meet the basic cost of living.

In my constituency of Stratford-on-Avon, many parents work in sectors such as hospitality, tourism and the creative industries, where income can be seasonal or irregular. I often hear from constituents who simply cannot afford to take the time they need to recover after childbirth or to bond with their baby. That is not only unfair, but shortsighted both socially and economically. Every parent should have genuine flexibility and choice in those first crucial months.

[Cameron Thomas (Tewkesbury) (LD)]

I will not be the only parent in this House who regrets every day that they are not going to spend with their children. One of my constituents is a PhD student studying paternity, and she has found that men’s mental health is particularly vulnerable at the point of childbirth and the point of return to work. The two factors that can reduce that are time and control. Will my hon. Friend join in my call to the Government that men should have a statutory right to co-ordinate their return to the workplace with their employers?

[Manuela Perteghella]

I was a PhD student when I had my first child, so I understand the challenges that students face.

All forms of parental leave and pay, including for adoptive, foster and self-employed parents, should be available from day one. Statutory maternity and shared parental pay should be doubled and paternity leave increased. When parents and carers are supported to take time off, children benefit from early care and attention. It helps parents to return to work, reduces pressure on household finances and supports a more equal sharing of responsibilities at home. The Government’s review of parental leave is an opportunity to act, and I hope that it looks seriously at the low statutory rates and creates a system that reflects the realities of modern family life. Families deserve the time, flexibility and security to give their children the best possible start in life.

18:40

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

Working families form the backbone of this country. They go to work, increase our prosperity and raise the next generation at the same time. It is a hard job. It always will be, and it should be, but it should not be this hard. Statutory maternity pay in the UK is one of the lowest in Europe—less than half the minimum wage after six weeks. Maternity Action has reported that half of new mums cut their leave short, with 97% saying that money was a reason for their choice: no choice at all.

Dads are not exactly doing better. They get two weeks at the same maximum of £187 a week. One dad in Leeds South West and Morley, a median worker, told me that he would lose £103 a day on statutory paternity pay. If a median worker is forced to make that choice, can we even call it paternity leave, especially since it does not encourage dads to take time with their children and support their partners? When my first child, Oscar, was born, he timed it perfectly. I was a teacher at the time and he arrived two weeks before half term, so I got three weeks with him, but even that was not enough. As we all know, babies do not stick to schedules and they certainly do not wait for Government reviews.

The Government’s review of parental leave is welcome, but 18 months is a very long time. The Government can already consider Maternity Action’s report, which asks for maternity and paternity pay to be increased in line with the living wage. They could also speak to The Dad Shift, which proposed increasing the length of paternity leave. They could speak with our trade union friends too, but whoever they speak to, it is clear to me and to everyone here that families need proper paternity and maternity pay, and they need it now.

18:42

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I congratulate all new parents, and especially my cousin Jake and Shannen on the arrival of baby Kai Burley last week. It is a reminder of the joy that new life brings and the responsibility we have to support families at that crucial time. This is not just about numbers; it is about real families. One Portsmouth father told me that he went back to work in bits and feeling useless three days after his son was born. His partner had undergone an emergency caesarean and could barely move, but he could not afford to lose another week’s pay. Another father, whose daughter arrived prematurely, returned to his delivery driving job after just one week. He said:

“Every mile I drove, I felt I should be home.”

Those are not isolated stories. They reflect what parents across the country are facing. When fathers cannot afford to take leave, the burden falls entirely on mothers. I have spoken to new mums recovering from major surgery alone while caring for newborns, and often other kids. The toll on their mental and physical health is profound.

This is also a workplace safety issue. I heard of tradespeople who supported my tool theft campaign returning to work on almost no sleep, operating heavy machinery, driving long distances and putting themselves at risk. One plainly told me:

“I was a danger to myself. But I couldn’t afford to stop.”

The petitioners are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for fairness. They are asking for statutory maternity and paternity pay to at least match the national living wage, for six weeks of ringfenced paternity leave, and for self-employed parents to be included. The status quo is failing. This is about fairness, family and the kind of country that we want to be.

18:43

[Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for introducing this debate. Being a parent is the hardest job in the world, and I believe that the state has a duty to make it easier. With just 90 seconds, I want to focus on just one case study.

Blanche is a fantastic mum who lives in Edinburgh South West. She is self-employed, and she found herself in an even more precarious position when she had a child. As she works for herself, she was entitled to only a statutory allowance: a flat £187 per week with no six-week cushion, unlike the statutory maternity pay situation. As a result, she had to work right up until the morning she went into labour at 41 weeks, and she returned to work almost instantly after using up her “keeping in touch” days. To quote her directly, and I warn Members that this is a bit graphic,

“it was a shock to the system, her body was sore, her breasts were leaking, she was still bleeding”.

She had to do work in that condition. She highlights that alongside the physical and logistical difficulties, she felt stigmatised by medical staff and other parents who judged her for leaving her child to return to work so early, without understanding that her financial situation forced her to do so.

I spoke to Blanche at the weekend. She does plan to have another child—she is a fantastic mum, and I am sure that we all wish her well—but she hopes that by then, Minister, things will have changed. I know that we cannot do this overnight, but I hope that the Minister can signal the start of a transition.

18:45

[Lee Barron (Corby and East Northamptonshire) (Lab)]

I met Natalie from Raunds earlier this year, when she was seven months pregnant with her first child. She wants nothing more than to take time to care for her baby. When people are off work raising the next generation, the wages stop, but the rent and energy bills do not, and other costs go up.

This is not just about Natalie. It is about warehouse workers, firefighters, nurses and shop staff—working people who pay in their whole lives but feel abandoned when they need support the most. We want a system that respects work, family and parenthood, and that means maternity and paternity pay being raised to at least the national living wage—proper, fully paid leave, as the Fire Brigades Union is fighting for in its Fight for 52 campaign.

Parental leave is a day one right, not a privilege. I welcome the Government’s review of the parental leave system, and I welcome the fact that all current and upcoming parental leave and pay entitlements will be in scope. No parent should be pushed into debt for having a baby. No mum should feel guilty for taking time to heal. No dad should be told that two weeks is enough.

Natalie had the courage to speak up, but the petition proves that she is not alone. We are not asking for luxury. We are asking for fairness, dignity and the basic right to raise a child without being pushed into poverty.

18:46

[Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)]

Lots of people in the room will have heard me speak before about the fact that statutory paternity pay is so low that men commonly do not take it, and that shared parental leave is failing in that men do not take it up at all, particularly outside London. The result is that female work and participation in the workforce are massively hindered.

What I really want to talk about is the fact that £187 a week simply does not provide enough for people to live on, and that 70% of children in poverty in the UK have at least one working parent; that group has the highest levels of poverty. We urgently need to look at what people actually need to live on when they have children, versus what we would like women to put up with. Women having been putting up with it for far too long.

The reality is that 30% of domestic abuse starts during pregnancy, and statutory maternity pay ensures that an extremely vulnerable group of women do not have enough money to live on should they choose to leave their partners. This is not about making sure that we can all have posh prams; it is fundamentally about women being able to make decisions about their safety and the safety of their children. I do not think that gets nearly enough airtime in this Chamber.

Finally, I draw attention to Maternity Action’s position on the treatment of maternity allowance for universal credit purposes. If someone receives statutory maternity pay, it is treated as pay and they get universal credit. If they receive statutory maternity allowance, it is not treated in the same way, and they are likely to be £6,000 a year worse off than they would be in an equivalent situation with SMP.

18:48

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

My son Jake and his partner Amber are about to have a child, and I am very proud, but he is taking out a loan so that he can have six weeks off work, because he believes it is important. In Spain, people get 17 weeks of fully paid leave, and in Denmark they get 24 weeks. What are we doing in this country?

As a practising GP, I have seen the cost of our policy. There are higher rates of post-natal depression in women, and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) said, men have sleepless nights and higher rates of mental health issues. Much more importantly, the children suffer.

Parental leave is a form of preventive healthcare. We need to build a parental leave system that recognises that caring is an investment in healthier families, happier children and a fairer society. Every parent, whatever their income, should have the chance to bond with their child without fear of financial hardship.

18:49

[Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)]

When we talk about maternity and paternity pay, we are also talking about crucial economic infrastructure—the systems that underpin participation, equality, productivity and, crucially, growth. As my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) put it, it is a public good, not a private indulgence. Right now, our system is not delivering any of that. Analysis from the Office for National Statistics shows that mothers lose an average of £65,000 in earnings in the first five years after their first child. That is not only lost household income, but lost tax receipts, skills and human capital for our wider economy.

In theory, shared parental leave offers parents flexibility, but in practice, it remains inaccessible to most households. Data from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs shows that 17,000 claimants take it up per annum, but they are generally disproportionately higher-income families, and it is hardly a mass labour market instrument. Its design is complex, its rules are difficult to navigate and pay levels are too low to make genuine choice possible. Put simply, it is a policy that works only on paper. The inequity is most evident for self-employed fathers, who are excluded entirely from the statutory framework. A self-employed mother can claim maternity allowance, but no equivalent exists for fathers. The evidence is clear: when fathers can afford to take that leave, mothers are better able to sustain labour market participation, the family income rises and the Exchequer gains through productivity and tax receipts.

18:51

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s full review of parental leave as part of our promise to make work pay. It will reshape the vital support that new parents are offered in Britain, so that it can effectively and compassionately align with the changing demands of our modern world. It is vital that the review also looks at the support provided to bereaved parents, because it cannot be right that when mothers and fathers face the greatest tragedy that can affect any of us—the loss of a child—there are barriers to basic support. There is more we can do to support families at the point that their child is first diagnosed with a serious condition.

I recently met a constituent, Stephen, at a street surgery in Birch Hill, and we spoke about the challenges his family faced when supporting their daughter through her cancer treatment journey. Beyond the unimaginable emotional toll of caring for his daughter Edie, Stephen spoke to me about the often-overlooked practical difficulties that arose for his family. He told me about how the cost of fuel, hospital parking and food quickly pushed his family into debt. That is why Stephen is backing calls for Hugh’s law, which would give the parents of critically ill children who are undergoing treatment job protection and entitlement to statutory paid leave from the first day of their child’s diagnosis. Hugh’s law is, of course, named after Hugh Menai-Davis, the six-year-old son of Ceri and Frances Menai-Davis.

[Sarah Russell]

I would like to add my voice to my hon. Friend’s call for Hugh’s law and ask him if Edie was okay.

[Peter Swallow]

When I met Stephen at my street surgery, I also got the chance to meet Edie, an energetic, enthusiastic young girl running around with her sister, recovering well from her terrible ordeal. She has been so brave, and I am so proud to stand here as her MP, sharing her and her family’s story.

18:53

[Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak with you in the Chair, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for introducing this petition so thoughtfully, and I thank Grace Carter and the more than 100,000 signatories. For too many families, including in my constituency, our parental leave system simply does not work. In many households, especially in rural or more deprived areas, where wages are lower and transport costs are often higher, taking one’s full entitlement of parental leave is unaffordable. It is little wonder that one in three dads take no leave at all when their baby arrives, and we know the consequences of that. Around two in five births are by caesarean section, a procedure requiring considerable recovery time. In a constituency such as mine, that could mean being stuck at home without the support of family, friends or a partner. Those early weeks can be isolating, and that is before we add in the exhaustion and recovery from major surgery. That is the value of paternity leave to new mums.

On pay, so many young people are putting off starting a family because of the sheer cost of parenthood. When I speak to people my age, many women feel that they must return to work even before their nine months of maternity pay comes to an end. On the cost for employers, if we frame this in the context of staff morale, the conversation shifts to being about the cost of the system as it is now. What is it doing to fathers’ mental health and productivity at work when they are not able to take time off with their children? As part of the ongoing review into parental leave, which I am so proud of, I urge the Minister to consider the arguments and evidence of campaigners such as the Dad Shift, Pregnant Then Screwed and thousands of families up and down this country. Paternity and maternity pay should not push families into poverty, but provide proper time for parents to be parents.

18:55

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Ind)]

Charting a path to national renewal means making decisions today, although the full benefits may not be felt for years to come. In the first few years of life, more than a million new neural connections are formed every second. During that time, more than any other, children must be nourished and supported by the scaffolding of happy, healthy lives. That means a decent, warm home, so that babies use their energy not to keep themselves warm, but to grow and develop. It means parents not being ground down by bills piling up; it means families being shielded from the impacts of poverty; and it means mothers not being rushed back to work before their bodies have even fully healed, as is too often the case.

We hear a lot about family values in this place. That has to mean taking real steps to make daily life easier and to make the sums add up at the end of the month. As a nation, we must improve maternity and paternity pay to genuinely provide all families with security and stability. We must build a country where children are nourished in their early years, parents are treated with dignity through life’s challenges and people are not sneered at for receiving support. We must build a society that offers a helping hand, nurturing rather than sanctioning—one grounded in a belief in the value of every human life, where doing all we can to give a baby the best first steps is seen not as a cost on a Treasury spreadsheet, but as the duty of a decent society and an investment in a more prosperous country for us all.

[Wera Hobhouse (in the Chair)]

Before I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, I thank you all for making sure that everyone got in. I hope you forgive me for being tough about it.

18:56

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) and the Petitions Committee for this debate. As a survivor of three maternity leaves—all on statutory pay—a c-section and a spell in the neonatal unit, all the topics that have been raised are very close to my heart. I thank each and every hon. Member for their contributions and for representing their constituents so well.

This summer, the Government announced that they would undertake a parental leave and pay review, expecting it to conclude in 18 months’ time. The Liberal Democrats welcome the Government’s commitment to that much-needed review of parental leave. Every child deserves the best possible start in life and the opportunity to flourish, no matter their background or personal circumstances. Too often, parents struggle on inadequate parental pay and without good enough access to shared leave. Childcare costs are eyewatering, and balance between family life and work has only become harder and harder to achieve. Not only is that unfair on families, but it weighs down our economy.

The Liberal Democrats have called for an overhaul of the parental leave system to give parents a genuine choice over how to manage their affairs in the first months of their child’s life. The Liberal Democrats were proud to introduce shared parental leave when in government. Years later, however, millions of parents are still being denied the choice to spend more time at home, with about a quarter of fathers ineligible for paternity pay.

Meanwhile, the Government are introducing wide-ranging changes to employment law through the Employment Rights Bill. The Bill will introduce a suite of new protections and entitlements for working families, including enhanced rights on leave, protection from dismissal and bereavement support. Eligibility for paternity leave and unpaid parental leave requires employees to have a minimum length of service in order to qualify, but from April 2026 the qualifying service requirements will be removed. That means that paternity leave and unpaid parental leave will become entitlements from the first day of employment, as the Liberal Democrats called for in our 2024 general election manifesto.

[Dr Arthur]

The Lib Dems may well have called for that in their manifesto, but when it came to a vote, they abstained on that very right for mothers. Does the hon. Lady now regret that?

[Sarah Olney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The Liberal Democrats support measures that work to strengthen employment rights. We welcome aspects of the Employment Rights Bill, such as boosting statutory sick pay, strengthening support for whistleblowers and increasing support for carers, all of which move us in the right direction. However, we remain concerned about the specific way in which many of the measures are to be implemented. We must ensure that the legislation strikes the right balance for employees and for business, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises.

I have spoken with businesses in my constituency that tell me that they are being left in limbo by the vague framing of the Bill, which leaves crucial detail to secondary legislation and Government reviews. That prevents long-term planning, and I am disappointed that the Government did not support the Liberal Democrat amendments, which would have created more certainty for businesses.

New measures to support workers must go hand in hand with much-needed reforms to support our small businesses and bring down their costs. We know that the Government inherited a mess. We know that the cause of the mess is the legacy of reckless economic mismanagement by the previous Government, whose record is a dispiriting picture of low growth, high interest rates and a record fall in living standards. But it is disappointing that the current Government have taken decisions that have compounded many of the challenges for communities, businesses and families, while presiding over very tight public finances and a stagnant economy.

That is why we urge the Government to put in place a range of measures that will bring down business costs, unleash the power of our SMEs and power economic growth—measures such as scrapping the unfair national insurance rise, fixing the broken business rates system, bringing down the cost of energy by decoupling electricity and gas prices, and finally repairing the economic damage caused by the previous Government’s shambolic Brexit deal by cutting red tape and negotiating a new bespoke UK-EU customs union. Those actions could breathe new life into our economy and our small businesses and would go a long way towards facilitating improvements to parental leave and pay.

In our 2024 general election manifesto, we called for statutory maternity and shared parental pay to rise to £350 a week, for paternity pay to increase to 90% of earnings with a cap for high earners, and for the introduction of an extra “use it or lose it” month for fathers and partners, paid at 90% of earnings, again with a cap for high earners. Those policies would benefit not only families, but businesses and the economy, by encouraging workforce participation and making it easier for people to advance their career while starting a family.

We hope that the Government will look closely at those proposals, while introducing a robust plan to cut business costs, boost growth and empower our SMEs. More broadly, I urge them to look into the prevalent inequality in caring responsibility. What steps are they taking to support millions of family and kinship carers who have no paid leave at all? Will they commission a similar review into provision for unpaid carers and make carer’s leave paid?

18:59

[Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier) for so competently introducing the debate, with an excellent speech, and I thank everyone else who has contributed to it.

I was particularly struck by the comments made by the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) about Hugh’s law and the need for further work on bereavement support. That reminded me of one of my constituents, Clara Gilley, who has a very unusual brain cancer. The real-life issues that she faced, and which I was dealing with as her MP, were the travel costs to Bristol—that is a long way to go from Devon—and the costs of adaptations. I recognise the calls for us to consider how we can help parents whose children are sick and unwell with the costs of that, and I hope that the Minister heard them. I have seen it at first hand, and I am sure lots of other Members will have seen similar issues.

The Conservatives are proud to be the party that champions family life. We recognise that strong families are the bedrock of a healthy society—that is something else that has come up this afternoon. Britain is one of the best places to have a child and raise a family, following measures introduced by Conservative Governments to extend free childcare, support flexible working and enable shared parental leave.

[Alex McIntyre]

As the hon. Lady is so proudly championing her party’s record, will she stand by the comments by the Leader of the Opposition, who said that maternity pay is “excessive”, and by a donor to the Leader of the Opposition, Luke Johnson, who told the Employment Rights Bill Committee that the worst thing about the Bill is its further extension of paternity rights?

[Rebecca Smith]

On what the Leader of the Opposition said, I am not 100% sure of the quote, so I am not going to comment on that. I think it was taken quite significantly out of context. On the Bill Committee, I will continue saying it—[Interruption.] At the end of the day, I am the one here speaking this afternoon, so I am at least interested in this debate—let’s keep talking.

We understand the challenges facing families, which is why we updated the system to enable greater flexibility in how parental leave is taken. We wanted to ensure that parents are supported to spend the precious first few weeks and months bonding with their newborn, promoting healthy attachment that sets their child up for a successful future.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

I will keep making progress, if I may. [Interruption.] It is not because I do not want to take the intervention, but because I am on a time limit.

We introduced the biggest expansion of childcare in England’s history—it is heartening to see that Labour has continued our roll-out, despite its criticisms at the time. We backed new legislation to provide additional paid leave to parents whose baby requires neonatal care, allowing them to spend more time with their baby in hospital instead of worrying about returning to work or having to take unpaid leave. We strengthened protections for pregnant women and new parents against redundancy, removing workplace discrimination and improving job security. We introduced shared parental leave for new parents, allowing parents to share up to 50 weeks of leave and up to 37 weeks of pay after the birth or adoption of a child.

However, more needs to be done to encourage uptake of shared parental leave. We know that of fathers who did not take shared parental leave, 45% were not even aware that it existed, according to a 2023 review under the previous Government. Awareness is particularly lacking among smaller businesses: 94% of managers in workplaces with 250 or more employees were aware of the provision; that dropped to 71% in workplaces with fewer than 50 employees.

Importantly, our Government brought statutory adoption leave and pay in line with statutory parental leave, ensuring that adoptive parents had the same rights as birth parents. Adoptive parents also became eligible for paid time off for up to five adoption appointments—something that I personally think is entirely welcome.

[Sarah Russell]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Rebecca Smith]

I will keep going, because I have quite a lot to say.

Those measures rightly honour the contributions of parents who open their heart and home to children in need of a loving family; 4,500 people claimed statutory adoption pay in 2024-25. In England alone, 2,940 children were waiting for adoption as of September this year, so statutory adoption leave and pay are vital for increasing the number of adoptive parents.

As the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart) noted, we need to do more to support adoptive parents who are self-employed—that has come up loud and clear this afternoon. Statutory guidance allows local authorities to make discretionary means-tested payments, equivalent to statutory adoption pay. However, as we heard from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell), the charity Home for Good discovered that 34% of local authorities have no policy in place for those discretionary payments. Worse still, according to a 2022 survey by the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence, 90% of self-employed adopters are not informed about them by their social worker.

Of course we acknowledge the calls to go further with parental leave, and I am sure that the Minister heard the pleas to include kinship carers in the review. We will scrutinise the Government’s review of parental leave, launched in July this year, to ensure that it strikes an appropriate balance between supporting families and backing businesses. It is worth noting that the UK’s parental leave policies rank comparatively well against countries around the world. The UK offers the fourth longest statutory maternity leave, topped only by Estonia, Croatia and Bulgaria, and it ranks 13th globally for length of statutory paternity leave; 90 countries have no statutory paternity leave at all.

However, there is a fine balance between supporting parents to spend precious time with their child and protecting businesses from burdensome regulations. In our current economic climate, increasing statutory maternity and paternity pay would be counterproductive for businesses —small and medium-sized enterprises especially—at a time when Labour is already saddling them with extra costs. Small business owners are facing enormous pressure: 17,000 high street businesses are expected to close this year alone, and retail businesses in my constituency tell me that they now face a doubling of their business rates. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill as a whole is projected to cost businesses up to £4.5 billion annually and it could increase the number of strikes by 53%. Increased parental pay will be no help at all if people have lost their job. In this context, it is our view that significant increases in statutory maternity and paternity pay are simply unaffordable for businesses or the public sector right now. It is also not clear how the state itself would afford the change. I am sure that the Minister will address that.

We need to protect jobs for the long term. A stable household income is one of the most important factors in ensuring healthy, happy children who will grow into bold and ambitious adults. The Government’s Employment Rights Bill stifles small businesses when they are already gasping for oxygen. It overreaches, snatching choice out of the hands of business owners, who are best placed to balance the interests of their staff members with the viability of their business overall.

When it is practical and affordable, many businesses already offer enhanced maternity and paternity pay in order to retain talent—something that has been stressed this afternoon. A survey of 460 organisations by Brightmine in June 2024 found that 75% of private sector organisations and 97% of public sector organisations already offer enhanced maternity pay. Any changes to statutory maternity and paternity pay must be done after consulting businesses. We must avoid saddling them with yet more unaffordable costs at a time when they are facing immense pressure. Flourishing businesses provide stable income for families, leading to a strong economy and a brighter future for the next generation. The Conservatives’ record demonstrates our support for parents and families, but that must be done sustainably, in a way that backs businesses rather than stifling them.

19:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Andrew Western)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and to speak on an issue that is close to so many people’s hearts, as the response to the petition shows. I am speaking for the Government this afternoon, but after the previous contribution I think it is important that I set out that this is a matter of importance to all Ministers. I thank all the Members who have taken part in this hugely important debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Burton and Uttoxeter (Jacob Collier), who so eloquently set out on behalf of the Petitions Committee the various issues facing new parents.

We heard a number of excellent and thoughtful contributions. I had intended to attempt to run through all of them and respond individually, but what was most striking about the debate—until the closing contributions —was the significant unity in the room. Members have come together from across parties to speak with one voice. That shows why the Government’s review is so important. The myriad issues that new parents face—with health, finances, spending time with their children and so on—are so complex and the need for change is not lost either on me or on the Government more widely.

I will respond to a handful of the contributions—and how could I not begin with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre)? I am afraid I am not going to give his son a birthday present today, but I send my very best wishes and congratulations. I know that my hon. Friend is a loving and caring parent and I am sure that he has something lovely planned once we get away from the votes this evening. He and several other hon. Members asked whether certain aspects of the complex web of parental pay are in scope of the review, so let me clarify the eight areas that are in scope: maternity leave and pay; paternity leave and pay; shared parental leave and pay; unpaid parental leave; adoption leave and pay; parental bereavement leave and pay; neonatal care leave and pay; and maternity allowance.

The point about discretionary payments by the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) was well made. I have responded to a Westminster Hall debate before on that specific issue. I undertook then to take it away and feed it into the review, which is being led predominantly by the Department for Business and Trade. I did that then, and I will do so again now.

I want to recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), who is a champion on maternity and maternity rights. She is entirely right to set out the importance of the first few weeks, months and years—the first 1,001 days. I also recognise the challenge set down by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy).

Let me say at the outset that I will be disappointing hon. Members, because I will be pointing to the importance of allowing the review to run its course. I do so because an incredibly complex web of support has evolved since 1948, with significant changes since then—the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), set out the many changes made just by her Government. We have one chance to get this right. We have waited a long time for this review. We want to take the time not only to undertake the call for evidence, which we have already done, but to consult trade unions, employers, and parents and families before we have a public consultation.

[Ms Creasy]

I agree that there is complexity that we must deal with. Will the Minister update us on his Department’s view of the Women and Equalities Committee inquiry, which specifically took evidence about parental leave and six weeks at 90% of pay. Nobody is suggesting we can do everything overnight, but there are things that we could do now as a holding measure to start the change that everybody wants. Labour Members and those from other parties recognise the possible benefits to the economy and the country, so perhaps the Women and Equalities Committee offers an interim way forward.

[Andrew Western]

That is indeed one of a number of important pieces of work that we are feeding into the review. My hon. Friend tempts me to promise that we will go further immediately, but I am not able to do so today for the reason that I have set out: we want to get the review right and to take the time to bring forward changes and recommendations, and the pathway to change, in a measured way.

[Andrew Cooper]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will, after which I hope that Members will accept that I need to make some progress.

[Andrew Cooper]

I am sure everybody recognises how important it is to do this once and do it right. Is the Minister able to commit to legislating in this Parliament?

[Andrew Western]

We will need to see what comes out of the review, but we are committed to setting out a roadmap to change as a result of the review. I understand my hon. Friend’s point and note his desire, and that of other Members, for action to be taken as swiftly as possible.

I appreciate that parental leave and pay are vital to new mums and dads, giving them the space to spend time together as a new family. The first months and moments are critical in ensuring that a child is happy, healthy and well adjusted. It is something that runs deeper than pound signs and percentage points. Bringing a child into the world or into our home is a major event in anyone’s life. It is one that parents should enjoy free from the stresses of the workplace. However, we know that the current system is not working for everyone.

It is almost 40 years since statutory maternity pay was introduced for working women in 1987. It is half a century since maternity leave was introduced in 1975, and almost 75 years since the start of maternity allowance in 1948. In the years since, the world of work and the world at large have changed beyond recognition. Gone are the age-old stereotypes about men belonging in the workplace and women in the home. The lines between home and work have never been more blurred. As times have changed, there have been tweaks and updates: paternity leave and adoption leave in 2003; shared parental leave and pay in 2014; and neonatal care leave just this year. But, like a road network that evolves over time, the process is no longer as simple to navigate. We need something that is purpose-built for people’s journeys today.

In July, in partnership with the Department for Business and Trade, we launched the parental leave and pay review. It is time to go back to first principles, to work out exactly what the system needs to deliver and for whom—mums, dads and others—and to consider all the options before mapping out a new way forward. That starts with our remembering why maternity pay was introduced in the first place. It was primarily about the health and safety of women and their babies during pregnancy and in the months following childbirth. That is why, as the review progresses, the first objective that we have in mind for the parental leave and pay system, although not the only one, is ensuring that it supports maternal health by making sure women have enough money and time off work to stay healthy—physically and mentally—during the latter stages of their pregnancy and while recovering from birth.

Secondly, the approach needs to promote economic growth. When we give more new parents the freedom to stay and progress in work, it is not just mums, dads and kids who benefit; employers, too, benefit from keeping parents’ skills and experience. At present, just over half of new mothers go back to their old job following the birth of their child. We want to build a system in which every mother feels supported if they make that choice. New figures show that five years after a first birth, the average mother’s earnings will have dropped by more than £1,000 a month. Mothers deserve better.

Our third objective is to help children to get the best start in life by giving new parents the resources and space to give the care and attention their new arrivals need. Fourthly, we need to support parents’ childcare choices so that parents can balance care and work in a way that works for them, enabling co-parenting and reflecting the realities of modern work. Ultimately, we want a system that is fairer and easier to use, and that works better for parents and employers.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am really grateful to my hon. Friend for his speech. Will he ensure that there is a matrix over the Government’s objective that measures inequality in family life and ensures that we close the inequality gap so that parents experiencing the greatest deprivation benefit the most from the policy?

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. That is one of many really useful suggestions that have been made today, which I undertake to feed into the review for consideration.

Let me return to what I was saying about the requirement for a fairer system. We should not pretend that there will be easy answers as we go through this work—some difficult balances will need to be struck. The benefits of allowing parents flexibility must be weighed against the direct costs to employers and the public purse.

The petition asks us to increase the rate of statutory maternity and paternity pay to match the national living wage. We should note that maternity pay has never been intended to fully replace a mother’s earnings, and any moves in that direction should not be made lightly. The costs of statutory parental pay are largely paid by the taxpayer, with employers able to reclaim at least 92% of the cost from HMRC.

[Lola McEvoy]

I have raised many times in this Chamber the inequality of paternity rights when it comes to unfair dismissal. Addressing that would not cost the taxpayer or businesses anything, because protection is already in place for those who take shared parental leave, maternity leave and adoption leave. Will the Minister reflect that point in the review as well? He did not mention paternity when he gave us his overview of the review’s purpose, but I think that all Members here agree about the importance that dads feel they can take time off, especially when they are eligible to do so.

[Andrew Western]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If I did not refer to that issue, it was because I was trying to respond to an intervention and it was an oversight on my part. It is incredibly important and I will ensure that it is considered as part of the review.

I return to the petition’s specific ask of matching parental pay with the national living wage. The Government currently spend about £3 billion a year on statutory maternity pay and maternity allowance alone. This petition asks us to more than double the rate of maternity and paternity pay—in fact, it seeks a 144% increase. That would be far from a trivial expense at a time of difficult fiscal choices. I am not saying that that will not happen at this point in time—I do not know; we need to go through the process of the review—but we have to take the time to carefully consider such questions, given the significant financial implications, before any decisions are made.

I am cognisant of the time, so I will skip forward by reminding Members that maternity and paternity leave are just one part of the wider picture of financial support for parents. Maternity allowance is available for self-employed women and employed women who do not already qualify for statutory maternity pay. Child benefit is available from the date of a child’s birth, and the Sure Start maternity grant offers a £500 lump sum to mothers receiving one of a range of qualifying benefits.

[Sarah Russell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Chris Hinchliff]

Will the Minister give way?

[Andrew Western]

I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) and then take one more intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), but then I will really need to move on.

[Sarah Russell]

The interrelationship between maternity allowance, which I made a point about earlier in the debate, and the £500 Sure Start grant is a problem, because if someone is self-employed, they are not eligible for that grant.

[Andrew Western]

I absolutely agree. That is one of the things that I want the review to capture. A particular range of issues is specific to self-employed people. We have already heard about that in the context of adoption, and my hon. Friend raises another example. She is entirely right to champion the rights of self-employed people in this space.

[Chris Hinchliff]

Several colleagues have mentioned Hugh’s law today. As the Member of Parliament for Hugh’s parents, Ceri and Frances, may I welcome the fact that the Government have committed to a consultation on the introduction of Hugh’s law? I urge the Minister to speak to his ministerial colleagues to see whether we can get Hugh’s law in the next King’s Speech so that it is delivered for families who desperately need support.

[Andrew Western]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I gave way because I expected him to raise that issue, given that it pertains to his constituents.

This is probably the most powerful debate that I have attended in Westminster Hall. I will certainly ensure that all the points that have been raised with me are fed back. This is a particularly important issue not just for my hon. Friend and his constituents, but more widely.

Moving through a child’s life, starting from this year, working parents—including those on maternity, paternity, adoption or shared parental leave—can now claim up to 30 hours of free childcare for children between the ages of nine months and four years. Tax-free childcare can also help parents to save up to £2,000 a year on the cost of childminders, play schemes, after-school clubs, nurseries and nannies. All infant pupils in Government-funded schools are eligible for free school meals, as are older children whose parents receive certain benefits. Our child poverty taskforce has been looking at what else we can do to drive down family costs, raise family incomes and give every child the best start in life. Our strategy will be published later in the year.

Work will be at the heart of our approach. Good work is vital to achieve lasting change and to our central mission of growth. That is why our review of parental leave and pay is a key part of our plan to make work pay. It will build on the progress we are already making through our work to tackle low pay, poor working conditions and job security. We are breaking down barriers for parents so that we can raise living standards, and so that they can raise the next generation.

19:26

[Jacob Collier]

I start by wishing a very happy second birthday to William, the son of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre). Perhaps he is at a soft play centre in Walthamstow.

I thank hon. Members for sharing their experiences and those of their constituents, which has powerfully showed the need for change in this area. I also thank the Minister for setting out the criteria of the review. I know that he cares passionately about these issues. Despite what the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) said, there is a real need for change, as we have heard throughout the debate. The Government’s parental review is the very first of its kind, and while it shows that the Minister and the Department are willing to listen, it must lead to real action with clear milestones for reform so that we do not see millions of families falling into poverty.

I welcome the Minister saying that he will draw on the evidence he heard today, as well as submissions from unions, employers and families. No parent should have to face poverty in bringing up their newborn. If we get this right, we can strengthen family life, improve equity and give every child a fairer start.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 715292 relating to statutory maternity and paternity pay.

19:27

Sitting adjourned.