Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 9th March 2026 Commons Chamber

The final harm is the chronic use of devices and the way that individual device use has filtered into all our children’s everyday lives.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Would the hon. Lady agree that the film-style age rating system that the Liberal Democrats have come up with speaks to exactly what she is saying? An app that allows children access to strangers or is built with an addictive algorithm, for example, would have a different age rating than something that is absolutely safe and gated, like a game, which could be rated safe for younger children.

[Lola McEvoy]

I am interested in the idea of licensing functionalities and new developments before they come into children’s lives, which is not happening at the moment—at the moment it is happening after they have been used for a long time. We are age-analysing and risk-assessing them retrospectively, which seems very backwards to me.

I agree that we should have a licensing scheme for content that is designed for children, like CoComelon and some of the other content that we know is addictive for very young children. Such a scheme would obviously have to be fleshed out, with a proper consultation on publishing rights and with information on who is going to do the licensing. I feel very strongly that self-published is inappropriate for under-16s. I do not think that content that is not regulated, that has not gone through any supervision and that has no legislative or regulatory framework surrounding it should be allowed to be fed to our children in any way.

I will sum up by saying that one of the young people in my latest online safety forum said to me via an anonymous note—I told them all that they could send me an anonymous note if there was anything they did not want to say in front of their peers— “Don’t ban it, but if you do, make sure it works.” I thought that was brilliant. Young people are much savvier than we give them credit for.

I want to make it very clear that at the moment, Ofcom is yet to use its strongest powers. The Online Safety Act does not include AI. I am determined that whatever this Government decide to do, they must do it with the idea of effective implementation of the legislation. We owe it to the next generation and the generation currently using the digital world to get it right and to future-proof their right to a childhood. Because so many of them have been badly let down, we must make evergreen—

World Book Day

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 5th March 2026 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and to respond on behalf of my party to this debate on World Book Day. I commend the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) for her excellent opening speech and for securing the debate.

World Book Day gives us a wonderful opportunity to discuss the power of reading, and we have heard some wonderful contributions about favourite books, much-loved authors and the transformative effect of a special book. Arguably the most important of Labour’s five missions for Government is breaking down barriers to opportunity for disadvantaged children, improving social mobility and seeking to lift children out of poverty. An incredibly powerful and often overlooked way of progressing towards those goals is by ensuring that more children are reading for pleasure, especially in their early years. Research shows that young children whose parents read just one book a day to them will hear about 290,000 more words by age five than those who do not regularly read books with a parent. Consistent, early exposure to books, rather than just infrequent reading, is crucial for closing a vocabulary gap that can stunt a child’s prospects all the way through school.

I hope that the Government’s support of family hubs will include a focus on educating parents about the importance of early reading, because it is crucial that all new parents are aware of the powerful, transformational difference that it can make to their children’s life chances. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood, spoke passionately about the enormous value of shared reading between parents and very young children.

[Patricia Ferguson]

I draw the hon. Member’s attention to a scheme that has been running in Scotland since about 2000. It used to be called “Bookstart” and is now called “Bookbug”. New-born babies through to children at the beginning of primary school go along to the library with their parent or carer and take part in communal reading, singing and action. It is an amazing experience to see, and a wonderful way of getting those children hooked on reading and communicating about it with other children.

[Caroline Voaden]

Communal groups where children can read together and parents can be encouraged can really boost a parent’s confidence in their ability to share a book with their child, because some parents to do not feel as confident reading as others do.

Last Friday night, I had the pleasure of reading “The Gruffalo” to my 18-month-old grandson. It was the first time that I have sat and read him a bedtime story, so I am starting again that long journey of reading to children, which ended with my eldest daughter after the fifth “Harry Potter” book, at which point I said, “No more,” and that she would have to read the last two on her own.

[Peter Swallow]

The hon. Lady provokes me to add a huge thank you to all the grandparents, kinship carers and extended family who support parents in reading to their children. In my family, it is often my dad who reads to my nieces and who they run to for a book at bedtime, so I say a huge thank you to the surrounding family who support our young people to love reading.

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member is absolutely right. When I was a rather frazzled single parent of two young children, I remember that my mum would sit calmly and quietly with the girls and read them stories when I did not have the headspace. It was a lovely thing to see, and they developed a very special bond.

This week, we on the Education Committee have heard some powerful evidence from experts on reading. Reading to children exposes them to millions of words that differ substantially from everyday spoken language, as books contain a wider range of vocabulary, more complex sentence structures and richer narrative forms. Reading helps children to develop their own vocabulary that they can go on to use during their school years and beyond. Dr Jo Taylor, associate professor of language and cognition at University College London, explained to us how exposure to language leads to vocabulary development.

There is also clear evidence that reading improves cognitive development, tuning an area of the brain that specialises in word processing. Several studies show that, alongside those developmental benefits, young people who develop the habit of reading in early childhood are likely to achieve higher qualifications and better upward social mobility later in life. An evidence review by BookTrust found that shared reading is consistently associated with stronger academic performance. By age 16, reading for pleasure is a much stronger predictor of progress in vocabulary, mathematics and spelling than parental educational attainment. Compared with their peers, disadvantaged children who achieve highly at the end of primary school are twice as likely to have been read to at home in their early years. Reading is such an important thing to do with young children.

That evidence shows how vital it is for improving social mobility that we strongly encourage and educate parents to read to their children regularly, throughout the early years, and that we continue to push children to keep reading for pleasure throughout their childhood and into their adult lives. No opportunity is better than World Book Day to demonstrate to children the simple joy of reading. World Book Day is a wonderful reminder of the difference that reading can make in a child’s life, not just in the classroom but far beyond it. I commend the hon. Member for Glasgow West (Patricia Ferguson) for her competition. I love the fact that she knows someone called Liam the librarian—he sounds like a character from a children’s book.

Dressing up as a favourite book character is great fun for children. It is a fantastic way for them to bring their fantasies to life and to live, if only for a moment, the life of their favourite character. It is perhaps less enjoyed by the frazzled parents, and I think that World Book Day has the potential to become a bit of a competition about who has the best fancy dress costume, so I welcome the alternative approaches taken by some schools to avoid that, and welcome costume lending libraries. I clearly remember the horror of, the day before World Book Day, remembering that a costume was needed.

I am very proud to say that my younger daughter is now a professional costume maker in film, trained at a very early age by her disappointment in her mother’s attempts. She would begin deliberating about her World Book Day costume weeks before the event. Although I am biased, I have to say that her costume of Effie Trinket, from “The Hunger Games”, was quite phenomenal. So, for all those parents who did not manage it this year there could be an upside.

Beyond the fancy dress, it is important that we remember what World Book Day is really about: reading. That is especially so this year, the National Year of Reading. The current state of children’s reading in this country is deeply concerning. We heard a lot of evidence about that in today’s debate. Reading rates are plummeting: the National Literacy Trust’s annual literacy survey found that in 2025 the percentage of children and young people who said that they enjoy reading was at its lowest level in 20 years. Just under a third of children aged eight to 18 said that they enjoyed reading in their free time last year—that is a shocking decrease of 36% over the last 20 years—and less than a fifth of eight to 18-year-olds said that they read something daily in their free time last year.

As hon. Members have discussed, there is a noticeable gendered aspect to the decline in the love for reading. Some 39.8% of girls aged eight to 18 said that they enjoy reading, compared with just a quarter of boys. That gap has expanded massively in recent years. It is also important to note that in 2020, research by the National Literacy Trust found that children and young people from minority ethnic groups, particularly those from black ethnic backgrounds, reported that they did not see themselves in what they read. It is far harder for children from such groups to find pleasure in reading when they struggle to find a book that they can relate to, or feel a cultural connection with. This week in the Education Committee we heard that that might have as much to do with the marketing of books, and with the industry, as with anything else.

How do we address the concerning trend of reading rates that continue to fall? As we have heard, libraries are a good place to start. The importance of a child having the opportunity to choose any book they like and take it home for free cannot be overestimated, especially for those who cannot afford to buy new books. Access to books is a key issue for disadvantaged children. The National Literacy Trust’s research found that one in 10 children and young people reported having no books of their own at home, rising to one in six for those who receive free school meals. That is why the Liberal Democrats would fund additional library opening hours as part of our commitment to hobby hubs—community third spaces where people can gather and enjoy hobbies, including reading. We would encourage children to utilise these spaces, providing access and opportunity for them to read more.

It is a sad fact that Libraries Unlimited in Devon has just had to declare that it can no longer sustain the opening hours of our much-loved libraries as they are, due to the chronic and sustained underfunding of local authorities like Devon county council over the past decade or so. I am pleased that my Liberal Democrat colleagues in Devon have just committed an extra £1 million to help libraries transition to a more sustainable footing, although that will have to rely on volunteers as well as paid staff—and it should not have to be that way.

I am really encouraged by the extraordinary response to my colleagues’ consultation, showing just how important libraries are to the people of Devon, who are clearly readers. We have an astounding array of bookshops in my constituency, and I commend everyone in the East Gate Bookshop, Castle Books, Oxfam Bookshop, the Harbour Bookshop, Another Chapter, Browser Books and Dartmouth Community Bookshop—I hope I have not forgotten any.

Additionally, like public libraries, libraries in schools need proper resourcing, and school librarians need training to encourage children to find books that will light a spark for them. Reading for pleasure means that children need to find something that they genuinely enjoy reading, so on this World Book Day I welcome the Government’s ambition to have a library in every primary school by the end of the Parliament. I hope the Minister can set out how the Government will invest specifically in school libraries, including all those that already exist, to ensure that children have access to books and support with fostering a love for reading, especially children with SEND, who may find reading more of a challenge but can still enjoy it.

When trying to explain the recent decline in reading rates, we cannot ignore the recent increase in recreational screen use. Children are being engrossed by addictive algorithms, swiping through TikTok rather than investing time and attention in a book. That is why the Government’s campaign to increase the number of children reading for pleasure must be accompanied by stronger measures to crack down on addictive social media platforms and children using phones in schools. That should start with legislating to introduce film-style age ratings for social media platforms that use addictive algorithms, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats, and legislating to ban smartphones from all school premises.

[Alex Mayer]

I recently ran a survey in a local school and asked the children what they thought they would be doing if they were not spending as much time on smartphones. About a third of them said they thought they would be reading more if they were on social media less, so I am really pleased that the Government are running a consultation and are about to take serious action.

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member’s contribution illustrates the draw of the smartphone, which is pulling children away from books—and it is not just children. I am sure many of us in this room are guilty of being addicted to the algorithm late at night, rather than going to bed early and reading a book.

Finally, we need to pay more attention to the curriculum and how we teach English, especially in secondary school. For many, English has become a box-ticking exercise where students are taught to answer exam questions on specific books, rather than being given the space to foster a love of reading. We need children to read for pleasure, rather than being forced to trawl through the same books repeatedly in order to answer set questions for their GCSEs. It is no coincidence that rates of reading decline with age. Over twice as many children aged five to eight said they read something in their free time daily compared with those aged 11 to 14.

We need space in our curriculum, especially in secondary schools, for reading for pleasure, which is why the Liberal Democrats are committed to a broader curriculum that makes genuine space for the arts and humanities and expands extracurricular enrichment, especially for disadvantaged children. That should include reading for pleasure. The Liberal Democrats believe that every child deserves an education rooted in curiosity, creativity and critical thinking. Reading sits at the heart of all of that—it opens doors, builds empathy and gives children the tools they need to thrive.

Every child deserves the chance to find a book that changes their life, so let us celebrate World Book Day and all the other initiatives designed to get children and adults reading for pleasure. The opportunities, ideas, dreams and passions it can unlock are endless.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her enthusiasm, although she has put us all to shame with her revelation about her amazing reading habits. The National Year of Reading is all about encouraging children to discover the magic of a good book, which can ignite a lifelong love of reading. There will be exciting online and in-person events, with lots of resources, happening in schools and libraries in communities up and down the country, including in Knowsley. I am sure she will be encouraging her constituents, schools and local children to get involved.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Reading daily to young children is shown to have a direct correlation with better outcomes, qualifications and social mobility later in life. Just one book a day means a child will hear approximately 300,000 more words by the age of five than those who are not regularly read to. However, many parents are not aware of this, so as part of the National Year of Reading, have the Government given any consideration to repeating the success of “Clunk Click Every Trip” and running a national advertising campaign to promote directly to new parents the need and the value of reading to their children every day?

[Bridget Phillipson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the evidence of reading with children, and how even reading for a short time at the end of the day can really set children up to succeed. Through the National Year of Reading, we will be supporting exactly those kinds of initiatives, and through our Best Start family hubs we will ensure that parents get high-quality advice about the best ways to support their children’s learning at home.

Bereaved Children: Government Support

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) for her powerful speech introducing the debate and for all her work on this subject.

It is normal in debates in this Chamber to bring the stories of our constituents to illustrate the issue, but today I am going to share my story as well. In 2002, I had a five-month-old baby and a two-year-old toddler, and my beloved husband was diagnosed with terminal oesophageal cancer. A year later, he died, just a week before Ellie’s fourth birthday and Laura was 17 months old. You cannot explain to a baby or a four-year-old what death means. One day their parent is there, the next he is gone. I remember Laura, who had just learned to say the word “Dadda”, going round the house opening the doors, going “Dadda, Dadda”, because she could not find him. I did not really know anything about the impact of bereavement on children, but in the last 20 years, I have learned quite a lot.

In the UK, around 120 children are bereaved of a parent every day—[Interruption.]

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

The hon. Member is making a powerful speech, and we are all honoured to hear it.

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her intervention.

In the UK, around 120 children are bereaved of a parent every day. By age 16, approximately one in 20 young people in the UK will have experienced the death of a parent. I became the chair of the Widowed and Young organisation and met loads of kids and their parents through that work, many of whom I am still friends with today. I saw the impact on scores of children who had lost their mum or dad. Thousands more in the UK have lost a sibling, which is also a profound grief for children, which is little understood. I saw these children grow up and adjust to their lost; the progress they made and then the setbacks; the challenges with attachment, loss, fear and abandonment; the issues with friendships and relationships; struggles with school; dangerous coping mechanisms and risk-taking in teenage years; mental health challenges; anger; intense emotions and anxiety. Just for the sake of my daughters, that is not all related to them.

While children are navigating all of that, the challenge of becoming a single parent at exactly the same moment that you are bereaved cannot be overstated, and that is compounded exponentially when the bereavement is sudden and unexpected. The day my husband died, my children came home from nursery and needed me to be the same reliable, loving, stable mum they knew—up at 7 the next day needing their breakfast, and so it went on. There is not much time to navigate your own grief in all of that.

On top of that is the loss of income. The challenge of holding down a job, bringing in a wage, while being a grieving single parent to grieving children is immense, as are the unaffordable costs of childcare that enable you to go to work at all. But in a way, I was lucky, because I was bereaved before 2017 and I received the widowed parent’s allowance—a payment that was funded by the national insurance contributions that my husband Nick had made during 20 years of full-time work, contributions designed to pay into a system that is meant to pay out when needed. He will never receive a state pension.

What difference did the widowed parent’s allowance make? It made all the difference. It allowed me to work part time. It allowed me to be present for my children, to help keep them stable while the world around them felt unsafe and scary. It made a part-time income go further. It helped pay for childcare and a few out-of-school activities so my children could live the same life as their peers. It also helped pay for the holiday clubs that they had no choice but to go to so that I could go to work —and they did not always want to.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

In 2024, my constituent Claire lost her husband—a personal tragedy. Overnight, she became the sole parent to her three-year-old son. [Interruption.] Sorry, this is personal as well. I was going to talk about me, but I am not going to talk about me. She rightly points out that the fixed 18-month limit on bereavement support payments creates a financial cliff edge for widowed parents, to which my hon. Friend has already referred. Does she, and the Minister too, agree that the grief, permanent loss of income and parenting responsibilities to all children, particularly very young children, do not end at that arbitrary 18-month period, that cut-off point, and that it should be rethought?

[Caroline Voaden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; I could not agree more.

In 2017, it all changed: the previous Conservative Government replaced the widowed parent’s allowance with the bereavement support payment—an 18-month flat-rate payment paid regardless of the child’s age. That decision drew cross-party criticism and was opposed at the time by us, the SNP and Labour MPs. It severed the historical link between national insurance contributions and long-term family protection. It created measurable disadvantage for widowed parents and bereaved children. The bereavement support payment has not been uprated since it was introduced, and it remains at 2011 figures. The very minimum we are asking for today is for the Government to uprate it in line with inflation, and I ask the Minister to respond to this call. However, I want to see the Government go further and consider calls from campaigning organisations, such as WAY, to reinstate a bereavement payment that lasts until children leave school, to iron out the disadvantage that children are under from the moment they lose a parent.

Grief does not last 18 months; bereavement lasts a lifetime, and for children it comes back again and again in huge, destabilising waves every time they reach a different stage of growth and understanding of what death really means. Believe me, you have to keep going through it again and again as they get older, explaining exactly what death means—“No, he’s not coming back”—what they did to his body, and all that stuff. It goes on right the way to adulthood. Parents navigate this through a child’s life. Adding the extra strain of financial worries on to a widowed parent makes a difficult job far harder and puts a bereaved child into an even more dangerous place.

Lucy from West Sussex is 31 and a teacher. Her husband died aged 36 from sudden adult death syndrome in January 2023—out of the blue, with no warning. Her children were nine, six and three when their dad died. She said:

“Losing one income overnight has a huge knock-on effect. Combined with rising living costs, there are times I genuinely struggled to afford food. I always made sure my children ate, but that often meant skipping meals myself or relying on the cheapest food just to get through the week. I’ve had to use food banks.

Even now those payments would still make a meaningful difference to us as a family—not as a luxury, but as support that recognises what has been lost and what continues long after the funeral.”

We know that poverty is directly linked to poorer life chances, reduced attainment in school and more vulnerability to harms, and there is a societal impact to this too. Taking it to its very extreme, there is an association between bereavement and negative outcomes, so it is perhaps unsurprising that bereavement is prevalent among people in custody. The Centre for Crime and Justice Studies has reported that 41% of young offenders have experienced the death of a parent as a child— a rate significantly higher than for the general population. Other research shows that up to 90% of young men aged 16 to 20 in specific institutions have suffered at least one bereavement, with many experiencing multiple traumatic losses.

As the hon. Member for Glasgow North East said, we do not do grief well in this country. It is still often something to be brushed under the carpet. I know from my personal experience that it makes people embarrassed and awkward. It is something to be avoided, not talked about. We desperately need grief education, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West said, because it could be transformational.

On top of our financial calls on the Government today, we support the Winston’s Wish “Ask Me” campaign to make nurseries, schools, colleges and universities places where grieving students feel seen, understood and supported. Right now, at least one child or young person in every classroom across the UK is grieving the death of a parent or sibling, and 72% of students who were bereaved while in education said that they had never been asked what support they need. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West said, they need to be asked, “What do you need, and how can we support you?”

I remember vividly having to go through the story of my children’s bereavement again and again with different teachers every time they moved up in school or moved to a new school, to make sure they were aware that the children had lost their dad when they were very young. I often felt that the teachers just did not understand the impact, or how the loss could manifest itself at different ages as they grew.

Emmeline told me that her brother died aged 10 after a long illness. She said:

“I was 11 and my sister was 13. We said goodbye to him in the hospital, but it didn’t feel real, and when he died, we had so many unanswered questions that we didn’t feel able to ask for fear of upsetting our already grief-stricken parents. Although family members, teachers and our friends were kind to us, we weren’t offered counselling or professional support—I doubt it existed then—but in hindsight, this was something we really needed.

I had struggled with the grief for years and as an adult sought counselling to unravel those feelings, to learn how to cope with them when they resurfaced and understand the impact losing my brother had on me.”

The hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) referred to that in his very powerful speech.

“I am sure had this help been available when I was younger, I would have been able to express my grief more openly and come to terms with it much earlier.

I can completely see how losing a close family member could negatively change the course of a child’s life and in some cases, impact society itself.”

For people who work with children as teachers, care workers, youth leaders or wellbeing professionals, understanding developmental grief is essential. Grief is not rare; it is a common childhood experience that shapes how children see themselves and the world. I know that we are asking a lot of schools at the moment, with big changes on the horizon once again, but it is a small but absolutely fundamental ask of nurseries and schools to take the time to understand how grief affects children and how they can be supported. Schools must have the tools to signpost families to support organisations.

I absolutely agree with the calls for data to be collected on how many children have suffered such bereavements, which could be done through registrar offices. Until we understand the problem, we cannot begin to fix it. I was going to ask the Minister to talk to the Department for Education—I was not sure who would respond to the debate—but he is from the Department for Education. Can we discuss how to implement better understanding of developmental grief across the education lifetime, and find a way to collect data through registrar services? Will he talk with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions about uprating bereavement support payments in line with inflation, and begin the conversation about reinstating a bereavement payment that lasts until children leave school, in order to give them the best chance of overcoming the impact of the death of a parent?

Bereavement is a long, complicated and difficult journey. Members can see that, even after 23 years, it is still very, very real for me. Adding financial hardship to that journey is unjust and discriminatory, and it is time that it ended.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Key Stage 1 Curriculum

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for opening the debate with such a well-argued and passionate speech that went to the heart of this debate. I commend Ruth Lue-Quee and all the petitioners for starting the petition, and the 106,082 people who signed it. I also wish the son of the hon. Member for St Helens North (David Baines) a happy birthday.

What is play for? What benefits can it bring to children? And why is it more important than ever that we enable children to learn through play, both inside the classroom and out? Most importantly, perhaps, why should educational play stop at age five in England? Anyone who has spent time watching children play can see that they are learning all the time: their young brains are puzzling over how to do something and they collaborate with friends, finding solutions to whatever challenges they have set themselves, building resilience and learning the art of perseverance.

As someone who has recently welcomed a grandchild into the family, the algorithm has found me, and I now regularly see posts about Montessori play on my feeds. There are brilliant ideas for simple activities in which young children can engage that are fun, that are absorbing and that teach them crucial skills that they will carry with them as they grow. The best bit about it is that children do not know they are learning. They are not being told to sit down, be quiet or work at a set pace. They are enjoying themselves, going at their own speed, working things out as they go and quietly developing their little brains as they play.

We often say in this place that high-quality education is the best possible investment we can make in the future of our country. As the bedrock of everything that follows, the early years are crucial, laying that foundation stone for learning, wellbeing and opportunity. From ages four to seven, significant socio-emotional and physical changes are taking place. For example, at four years old, children start to expand their vocabulary and express their needs through words rather than actions. At five, they start to develop empathy for others and, at six, they begin to experience multiple emotions simultaneously. These are crucial and long-standing developments that shape a child’s character for life, so it is vital that during these formative years children have access for the most appropriate learning methods that nurture their curiosity, creativity and critical thinking—the skills that will help them thrive as adults.

Evidence suggests that during this period of a child’s life, play-based learning can have a positive impact on communication, as well as emotional and physical development, but being outside, getting wet and muddy, sliding around, climbing over things and exploring their world is just as important as sitting inside playing with building bricks or doing puzzles.

Children develop their knowledge and skills in the most meaningful way by doing things that they want to do. The Lego “Play Well Report”, based on nearly 13,000 responses from parents and children, found that 83% of children say they learn better when it “feels like play”. Through play, children have the space and time to make connections in their learning, try things out, make mistakes and learn how to do better next time. Hon. Members from across the House have shared personal experiences, input from teachers and academic evidence that all show the importance of learning from play.

Parents in this country recognise that play helps build the skills that lead to academic success, as well as how important play is to foster creative, sociable and emotionally resilient adults. Critics of play in the classroom often have the misconception that play is only unstructured fun—noisy children mindlessly running around like headless chickens without a care in the world, but as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cotswolds explained, that is not what we are talking about today, as important as it is.

Guided play within the classroom gives children the opportunity to learn and develop in a no-pressure environment, approaching tasks at their own pace and in their own way. The 2023 Ofsted report “International perspectives on early years” agrees with this, highlighting how teaching and play are difficult to separate, with adults likely to be teaching children during play—whether that be free or guided, or unconsciously or consciously.

Other countries have play embedded in their curriculum. In Sweden, the curriculum guidance explicitly states that both free and guided play should be a part of education, and that a child has a right to both these types of play. In Finland, school does not start until age seven, but high-quality early years education is widely available and affordable. Finnish early years programmes focus on children’s holistic development, with an emphasis on play as the primary mode of learning, where teachers act as guides for the child’s exploration.

However, we do not need to look only overseas for inspiration; we can also look at alternative approaches to education here. I recently visited a school in my constituency that follows the play-based Steiner-Waldorf education system. That approach focuses on holistic development through self-directed imaginative play, fostering creativity, social skills and nature connection before age seven. Children are encouraged to engage in uninterrupted free play, nurturing their creativity and allowing them to form and then express their own experiences. Teachers function centrally as role models, teaching not through instruction but through action, which children can then imitate.

Crucially, the Steiner approach includes significant amounts of time spent outdoors, regardless of the weather, to ensure that children connect with nature, improving their physical health and providing them with wonderful educational opportunities. It also helps build that deep connection with nature, which we will need for future generations to care about and promote the protection of our natural world. I commend all the schools in South Devon that prioritise forest school as a way of teaching and nurturing children so well through outdoor play.

I am convinced that there are aspects of the Steiner style of teaching that should be considered more seriously by our mainstream education system, especially for little children in their formative years. It may be dismissed by many as weird hippy nonsense, but it is much more serious than that. We should keep an open mind when approaching how we best educate children during this crucial period of their lives.

The Liberal Democrats believe in broad, balanced and forward-looking early years education that prepares students to excel, both in school and outside the classroom. Play-based education must be a part of that, and should not stop at five years old. Playing is important throughout life, though it might change somewhat as the years progress. As this petition highlights, the Government acknowledge the importance of play in achieving this in their early years foundation stage statutory framework. The framework details how play is essential to children’s development, building their confidence as they learn to explore, relate to others, set their own goals and solve problems. Children learn by leading their own play, by taking part in play, and through learning that is guided by adults.

A child’s fundamental development does not stop when they leave reception, so why do the Government think that play is important only until the age of five? Why is England lagging behind the other nations of the UK? To address those inconsistencies, the Liberal Democrats call on the Government to explore how play-based learning could be effectively implemented within the key stage 1 curriculum in England, including through consultation with teachers and schools. This is not about enrichment, but play-structured learning in the classroom.

I hope the Government will take a good, hard look at how play can best be incorporated into our curriculum, given the extensive benefits it can provide, as hon. Members have laid out so eloquently.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the right hon. Member for his read-out of the discussion that took place during the most recent shadow Cabinet meeting, where this was a lively topic of debate. Britain is not broken; it has huge and deep potential, best found in our children. We were pleased to see the last Conservative Government take forward many of the reforms initiated under the last Labour Government, and this Labour Government will be doubling down on the measures that are needed to break down barriers to opportunity at every stage.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

3. What steps her Department is taking to improve teacher retention.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)]

Labour is boosting teacher recruitment and retention in order to put 6,500 new expert teachers in front of our classrooms. We have boosted teachers’ pay by nearly 10% and have taken action to improve wellbeing, and we continue to offer the targeted retention incentive, which is worth up to £6,000 after tax. Under the Tories, teachers were leaving schools in droves; under Labour, we have seen one of the lowest leaver rates since 2010.

[Caroline Voaden]

A speech about teacher retention that I made in Westminster Hall recently has been seen by more than 135,000 people on Instagram, and there have been hundreds of comments from teachers. They speak of pay not rewarding experience and far too much time being spent on administration and tests, but it is also clear that safeguarding incidents and poor pupil behaviour are driving teachers out of the profession. We know that both those improve radically when pupils spend less time on social media, so will the Secretary of State commit herself to looking carefully at the Liberal Democrat proposal to introduce film-style age ratings for all social media platforms, not just to help our teachers but to protect our children?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We will look carefully at any sensible proposals to ensure that we can keep our children safe online. I recognise the broader issues that the hon. Lady has raised, about behaviour being a factor that affects teachers’ experiences and about some of the wider pressures including those relating to safeguarding. I am proud of the fact that we are expanding free school meal provision and ending the two-child limit, lifting more than half a million children out of poverty, because we know that poverty is a big driver of many of the challenges faced by our brilliant teachers and school staff.

Length of the School Week

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 5th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse, and I wish you a very happy new year. I thank the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for opening the debate. He obviously has a lot of experience in the classroom and has taken the themes behind the petition very seriously. I start by sending out heartfelt thanks to teachers up and down the country; I hope they have all had a lovely Christmas break and I recognise how hard they are working, in increasingly challenging circumstances.

Having looked into the reasons behind the petition, it seems that one of the sentiments was that we need to do what we can to keep our teachers in the profession. Teachers are the most important asset in our education system, and with every year of experience gained they become more valuable. We want to see world-class teachers in our classrooms, with the appropriate training and support to deliver the best education to all our children.

However, we currently face a serious teacher retention problem. Heavy workloads created by unnecessary bureaucracy and increasingly challenging pupil behaviour are driving teachers to leave the profession. Although new teachers keep coming in, we are trying to fill a leaky bucket as more experienced teachers leave in droves.

The most recent Working Lives of Teachers and Leaders survey found that 68% of teachers and school leaders did not think they had an acceptable workload and 55% felt they did not have sufficient control over their workload. In the same survey, more than six in 10 teachers who responded said that they felt at least half their working time was spent on tasks other than teaching. Those findings highlight teachers’ growing frustration with an increasingly unmanageable workload, being swamped by administrative work when they just want to get on with actually teaching the kids.

The Education Select Committee, on which I sit, heard recently about the dire situation we are now in with teacher retention. We were told that 9% leave the profession within a year, a quarter leave within three years and a third within five years. Those figures are far too high and are deeply worrying. It is clear that unless we tackle the reasons for teachers leaving, we will not have a stable, effective and consistent workforce. It does not matter how many teachers we recruit, if we cannot hold on to them after just a few years.

It is therefore important to address the issue of retention, and to note that it is exacerbated in schools in deprived areas. The Public Accounts Committee found that

“34% of teachers in the most disadvantaged schools had less than five years of experience, compared to 20% in the least disadvantaged”,

a figure that highlights how it is even harder to keep teachers in disadvantaged schools, something that has a knock-on effect on the future life chances of students in those schools, who risk

“being locked out of particular careers due to a lack of trained teachers”.

For example,

“31% of schools in the most disadvantaged areas do not offer Computer Science A-level (compared to 11% in the least disadvantaged areas)”.

Those are imbalances that we absolutely must iron out.

On the proposal made in the petition, the Liberal Democrats do not believe that switching to a four-day school week is the answer to the recruitment and retention problem. Reducing the school week would create additional challenges for families, as has already been mentioned, but particularly in relation to—and I apologise to the hon. Member for Lichfield—childcare. It would be not only logistically challenging, but financially punishing: parents would need to find extra childcare or reduce their working hours, which would make it harder for them to pay household bills and create even more pressure in a relentless cost of living crisis, and would have a damaging effect on the wider economy.

The impact of a four-day week on children’s mental health has been mentioned—but, while many younger people would love an extra day in bed, would it not be better for us to look at the mental health of our young people in a much broader sense? How can we design schools and the curriculum to improve, rather than harm, the mental health of our young people? How can we have more variety, less pressure, and more creativity, music and sport? We could even look at draconian uniform policies and their impact on children’s mental health. Let us design a system that is so great that children want to be there five days a week, not less than they already are.

Although it might sound as though a four-day week for teachers would resolve the retention crisis in our schools, it is not a practical solution for the economy at large. Instead, the Liberal Democrats believe the Government should consider offering greater access to flexible working arrangements for teachers while maintaining the five-day school week. We should follow a balanced approach that seeks to reduce teacher workload and improve retention, while ensuring that pupils continue to receive a complete and varied education. Giving teachers the support they need in the classroom, with enough teaching assistants, has to be part of that too.

The Public Accounts Committee found that, disappointingly, the Department for Education does not seem to understand the root causes of

“why and where workload is high”,

despite workload being the top reason for teachers leaving. We are calling on the Government to take a serious look at teachers’ working conditions, ensuring that they fully understand teacher workload, better to address the issue of teacher retention.

Furthermore, while the only real action from the Government on this issue has been to pledge 6,500 additional teachers over the course of this Parliament, the Public Accounts Committee found that it is unclear how that pledge will be delivered or how progress measured, or

“what achieving it will mean for existing and forecast teacher shortages.”

The Department for Education could not give the Committee a clear explanation of how the pledge was calculated or how it will fill existing gaps, with an estimated need for up to 12,500 more teachers in colleges alone by 2028.

Considering that the last teacher recruitment and retention strategy was published in 2019 by a failing Conservative Government, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a comprehensive teacher workforce strategy to properly address teacher recruitment and retention. Such a strategy would include reforming the School Teachers Review Body to make it genuinely independent of Government and able to recommend fair pay rises for teachers, fully funded every year, with the aim of ensuring that every secondary school child is taught by a specialist teacher in their subject.

We would also ensure that teacher training is properly funded so that all trainee posts in school are paid. Finally, we would introduce a clear and properly funded programme of high-quality professional development for all teachers, including training on effective parental engagement. By focusing on retention, flexibility and proper support for the profession, we believe we can create the conditions teachers deserve and need to thrive, not only for their benefit, but for pupils and families as well.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

In July, the Secretary of State promised a better SEND system, with strengthened support, improved access and more funding, yet even a charitable interpretation of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis of the Government’s decision, announced at the Budget, to absorb SEND funding into core budgets shows several billion pounds of unfunded SEND commitments. Parents around the country are worried that the support that they have fought hard for their children to receive may now be taken away. Will she explain how she will deliver strengthened support, while seemingly having to cut billions from SEND funding through upcoming reforms? Can she guarantee that children will not lose support because of this change?

SEND Provision: Kent

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 12th November 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. He outlined some horrific stories of neglect and appalling treatment of children with SEND. I am not from Kent—I am from Devon—but all I can say is that I relate. We hear exactly the same horror stories in Devon, and I am sure right across the country it is absolutely shocking.

Children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families are the most vulnerable in our society. When these children do not get the support that they need, they will be less likely to be able to work and participate fully in society in later life, not to mention the issues that they face in the moment. Not only is providing the right support for these children vital for them, their families and their education, but it creates long-term economic benefits. It is not just economically right, though; it is morally right that we act to ensure that children with SEND have the best life chances both in Kent and across the country.

More than 20,000 children in Kent have an EHCP. Alongside all other local authorities, Kent has statutory duties to meet EHCP deadlines and offer provision, but it is facing rising demand and declining resources. Under the previous Conservative administration, SEND in Kent was put into special measures after it was identified that urgent action was needed to improve services: just 13% of EHCPs were completed within the statutory 20-week deadline in the year to March 2024. When the county was in special measures, however, there were some improvements: the provision of EHCPs by the deadline went up to 65%. As a result of the improvements, Kent was taken out of special measures, but my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) is calling for Kent to remain in special measures to allow the improvements to continue.

Even during the period of improvement, quantity did not equal quality. As other Members have said, there has been a litany of mistakes on some of the EHCPs, including the incorrect names of schools, schools that do not exist, schools that are not approved, schools that do not have funding, incorrect needs and spelling mistakes—really basic errors. As a result, Kent county council received more than 500 complaints mentioning EHCPs in the year to July 2025.

When families complain, they are often told to go to a tribunal. Kent county council spent close to £2.2 million fighting parents in tribunals from 2021 to 2024—more than double any other county council. Families see this use of tribunals as a tactic to try to get them to give up seeking appropriate support for their children, and unsurprisingly, the tactic often works, because the tribunals are utterly gruelling, as we in Devon know as well. Families and children spend months preparing for them, the emotional toll is enormous and it sometimes costs as much as £8,000 to get the required legal advice. All the while, the child is not receiving the special education that their EHCP says they require, and delays sometimes stretch to more than a year. Most of these parents know that this is the education their children need. They know they are going to win, but they are forced to jump through hoops, on top of what they are already coping with, as parents of children with special needs and disabilities. It is truly appalling.

The last time my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells—who is on paternity leave, so unfortunately cannot be with us today—spoke about this issue in this place, he raised the case of his constituent Ella, who has cerebral palsy and is nine years old. Her father told my hon. Friend about how, when the family complained that her EHCP had not been updated to meet her needs when she moved from nursery to school, and that their application for a placement at a specialist school was rejected with no consultation, they were told on both occasions to go to tribunal. Faced with no other option, Ella’s family opted to go to tribunal. They have now been given a date in May 2026, leaving them stuck for more than a year without a sufficient EHCP to meet Ella’s needs.

Between 2021 and 2024, 98% of SEND tribunals in Kent were successful for the parents, so it is clear that if the parents have the money, time and emotional bandwidth, they can go to tribunal and will be successful, albeit after a wait. However, many parents decide that they are not able, either financially or emotionally, to put themselves through that arduous process, and the same is true nationally. The parents who win that process are often those who are more able to advocate for themselves and their children, rather than those who are less able to do so. Local authorities lose nearly all the cases, wasting more than £70 million annually—£70 million that could be spent on supporting children, rather than fighting unnecessary legal battles.

Since Reform took over Kent county council, the situation has only got worse. Colleagues at the council report that Reform councillors are acting like clowns in a circus. Just six months after being elected, eight of them have either been suspended or expelled from their posts. It seems that Reform cannot run a bath, let alone a county council on which more than 1 million people rely. The chaos is only making the situation worse for vulnerable children with SEND, who need a council that will give them support. The June meeting on children, young people and education was postponed indefinitely, pushing back any support that might be provided. That was just one of a plethora of committee meetings, cabinet meetings and sub-committees that the incompetent Reform administration in Kent has cancelled because it is unable to deliver government.

Reform is simply unable to grapple with a crisis of this magnitude and scale. Worse, Reform is actively proposing withdrawing support from families with children with SEND. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has suggested removing home-to-school transport funding from some families. He said:

“There are things called parents”

for taking children to school, although he admitted some exceptions could be made for special needs students. Kent faces the largest bill of any council in England for providing home-to-school transport for SEND students at £68 million last year—the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) raised that issue.

The plan by the hon. Member for Clacton to cut school transport would be a disaster for parents who do not have the time or money to drive their children on hours-long round trips to special schools miles away, or might be driving other children in the opposite direction or trying to get to work. He would know this if he ever took the time to speak to the families struggling with this problem.

One Reform councillor in Cambridgeshire showed the party’s true disregard for supporting vulnerable young people when he recently described some children in care as “downright evil”. When given the opportunity to condemn those comments in Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier today, the hon. Member for Clacton refused. Many children in care have special educational needs and disabilities. Reform’s blaming of young people who need our support shows that it is simply not fit to deliver for children with SEND in Kent and across the country.

It is welcome that the Government now recognise that the system needs fundamental change, but their decision to delay the overhaul of SEND provision in England until 2026 is a betrayal of every child with SEND and their families who are looking for better solutions. To kick the can down the road could be an admission that the Government do not have a sense of urgency or that they are not sure what the solution is, but we do need urgent action. Owing to the delay, the detail of the Government’s plan remains unclear. Many families are worried that EHCPs will be scrapped or scaled back, with no idea yet of what could replace them. The uncertainty is understandably causing anxiety among parents who see the documents as the only way to secure the support that their child needs. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke of the importance of some kind of legal protection around this support for families.

The Lib Dems introduced EHCPs in coalition—we are very proud of that. Before that, we had statements. If EHCPs are to be scrapped, families will still need some kind of statement of need to access services. Ultimately, the Government have to focus on the best way to meet needs and outcomes and not just focus on cost saving. As the Government are reviewing special educational needs and disabilities, it is important that the voices of children and families are heard. They see the system from the inside and experience its shortcomings. I know the Minister has met many families and campaigners and is listening.

After hearing those voices, the Liberal Democrats are also calling on the Government to commit to genuine change of the SEND system. We call for the Government’s White Paper next year to meet our five principles for SEND reform. Alongside putting children and families first, we call on the Government to boost special capacity and improve mainstream provision by building more specialist schools and investing in proper support in mainstream settings. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe talked about some very successful interventions elsewhere in the country. Models that do not cost huge amounts of money but offer a creative way of looking at the issue should definitely be explored and rolled out widely.

Early intervention must be improved and delays reduced, and schools need to be resourced to accept children with SEND, with staff trained in integrated teaching and care. To achieve that, funding will be required. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to cap the profits of private equity firms providing SEND provision at 8% to ensure that money is channelled back into the SEND system and not into the pockets of shareholders. We also call on the Government to provide support to any child whose needs exceed a specified cost threshold to ensure that no child is left behind.

The Liberal Democrats would welcome the Government working with us on a cross-party basis to ensure that reforms are delivered quickly. It is vital we get this right. Every child has the right, irrespective of postcode, background or need, to thrive.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Before I call the shadow Minister, I point out to the hon. Lady the courtesies and behaviour in the House. If you are going to name another Member, you should notify them in advance. Did you do that?

[Caroline Voaden]

As far as I am aware, we have done.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Right. I suggest you drop the hon. Member for Clacton a note to say that you raised him in the House and copy it to me. That would be wonderful.

[Caroline Voaden]

I think my office might already have done that. I will check.

[Sir John Hayes (in the Chair)]

Excellent. I call the shadow Minister, Saqib Bhatti.

International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools

Caroline Voaden Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for bringing forward this debate.

The international baccalaureate sets a global benchmark for education. It is trusted by universities, employers and educators worldwide as a mark of academic excellence. It equips young people with the skills they need for life, producing confident and well-rounded citizens. It therefore makes no sense for the Government to slash large programme uplift funding for the IB diploma programme—a deeply damaging and short-sighted move that will affect only 20 state schools that offer the IB. That funding makes it possible for state schools to deliver the IB programme, and removing it jeopardises access to the programme for state school students across England, entrenching even further the divide between state and private schools. That directly contradicts the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity.

The cut, worth just £2.5 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage said, is a drop in the ocean for the DFE, given its £100 billion budget, but the impact on state schools and students currently taking or planning to take the IB is devastating. Why are the Government discouraging ambition and preventing social mobility to save such a comparatively small sum of money?

I recently heard from Torquay Boys’ Grammar School, which is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) and is attended by many of my constituents. The school was shocked to learn that its large programme uplift funding would end with no prior warning, cutting £116,000 from its budget in 2026 and £90,000 in 2027. It warned that this was an irreversible change. Establishing the IB involves years of preparation and teacher training, something the school has been building up since 2009.

Losing the IB would happen quickly and with no turning back, but the impact extends beyond that. Torquay Boys’ said that without the IB it could not sustain A-level language courses. Those usually have only four to five students per class, but the IB programme keeps 40 students learning languages at 16 to 18. The cut could therefore lead to the death of certain subjects altogether in some state schools. As a language graduate myself, this is something I care about deeply. We can all plainly see the damage that cutting our ties to our nearest neighbours on the European mainland has done. Effectively wiping out language learning in schools is yet another hammer blow to intercultural understanding and relationship building.

We know that the IB is a pathway to top universities, apprenticeships and employment for young people in the state sector, so the cut is at direct odds with the Government’s pledge to increase the number of students pursuing further education. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, including maths, science, humanities, arts and a language. This decision therefore also actively conflicts with the Government’s promise in opposition to deliver a “broad and bold” curriculum.

Not every student is ready to limit their choices to three A-levels at 16 years old. The IB enables them to keep their options open for longer, ensuring they reach the right decision about what to go on to study later in life. Why are the Government taking a decision that actively narrows curriculums and limits skillsets? Why are they undertaking this hypocritical action that goes against their own commitments, missions and promises? And what do they seek to gain from a cut that will free up so little cash, but take away significant opportunities from ambitious state school students?

Our education system should nurture every child’s full range of talents by embracing a broader curriculum rooted in curiosity, creativity and critical thinking. The Liberal Democrats want a system that supports aspiration and opens opportunity. We need a more diverse education system, not a more homogenised one. The Government must reverse this cut and go further. The upcoming curriculum review should draw on the success of the IB diploma programme so that more students can benefit from its rigorous and balanced approach. The UK should learn from international models like the IB, not shut them down.

--- Later in debate ---

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Roger. I congratulate the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this important debate.

Post-16 education is a vital stage of a young person’s life. Whether they are following an academic, vocational or technical pathway, it is the stage at which they can focus more on the subjects they love, exercise greater choice over their learning, and begin to think more about where they want their education to take them, whether into further or higher education or employment. It is also a stage at which wider enrichment is vital, helping young people to develop broader transferable skills, find their talents, grow in confidence and expand into their growing freedom and independence.

However, funding for 16-to-19 education in schools and colleges has been significantly cut in real terms. Per-pupil funding had fallen by approximately 11% for colleges and 23% for school sixth form by 2024-25, compared with 2010-11 levels. That decline is the largest in any part of the education sector from nought to 19, and it has not been fully addressed, even with recent increases in funding. That has left many schools and colleges working hard to deliver a broad and enriched education for their 16 to 19-year-old students in the context of severe resource limitations.

There is no doubt that the international baccalaureate is a welcome development in 16-to-19 education. Its programme of study allows students to maintain a broader base, studying six subjects compared with the three of four that are typical for students taking A-levels. The IB also has a focus on broader skills and on creativity, as well as a more diverse range of assessment methods. It has many features that should be common to all post-16 education. But the IB is taught in just 20 of the 2,132 schools and colleges in the state sector that offer 16-to-19 education—less than 1% of those institutions—and in less than 10% of independent schools.

The Government’s decision to redeploy funding from the large programme uplift for the IB must be seen in the context of the broader challenges they face. Given the education funding landscape they inherited, how can they deliver an excellent education for every 16 to 19-year-old student across academic, vocational and technical pathways?

[Caroline Voaden]

The hon. Member talks about redeploying funding so that it can be spread across the landscape to improve 16-to-19 education, but we are talking about 0.004% of the education budget. Does she think that the tiny amount of funding that goes into the IB would make any difference at all if it were spread across the entire education landscape?

[Helen Hayes]

I think the Government are right to focus on how to improve education for every young person. If the hon. Member will bear with me, I will come on to some wider points about the importance of the IB, and the features of the IB that should be applicable more widely across the education sector. We need to be clear that we are talking about 1% of schools across the country, and that the other 99% of schools and colleges have many deep challenges. The Government are right to turn their attention to them as well.

How can the Government ensure that every young person has opportunities for enrichment and opportunities to develop broad transferable skills? Given the shockingly high figure of one in eight young people who are not in education, employment or training, how can the Government ensure that post-16 education is engaging, inspiring and exciting for all young people?

Where I take issue with the Government is in relation to the lack of consultation underpinning their decision to redeploy funding within the large programme uplift.

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Voaden]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Hayes]

I am not going to take any further interventions.

The international baccalaureate is an important part of the landscape, and I am pleased that the Government have confirmed that all schools can continue to offer it if they wish, but the bigger challenge for the Government is to ensure that there is excellence and enrichment across the board for post-16 education, which is a challenged part of our education landscape. Every young person should be able to benefit from an engaging, inspiring and exciting course of study, whether they are on an academic, vocational or technical route and wherever they live in the country, and every school and college should have the resources it needs to deliver.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) on securing this debate on what we have heard from Members across the Chamber is a really important subject.

Varndean sixth-form college in Brighton is the only state-funded provider of the international baccalaureate in the whole of Sussex. I was lucky enough to visit earlier in the year. It is a remarkable institution that gives young people from across the region, including many of my Mid Sussex constituents, the chance to pursue a truly world-class qualification, as other hon. Members have set out. I am pleased that Varndean’s principal, Donna-Marie Janson, joins us in Westminster Hall today.

The opportunity that Varndean offers is under serious threat. Varndean has warned that, without the large programme uplift, the IB will simply become financially unviable. The IB could—and, by the looks of it, will—disappear entirely from state education in our region, and potentially across the country. Let us be clear: that would be a tragedy for young people from Brighton and for those who travel to Varndean from places such as Burgess Hill, Haywards Heath and Hassocks to take the IB and go on to study engineering, medicine and mathematics at some of our leading universities. Claude from Hurstpierpoint told me that his decision to study the IB was

“One of the best choices I’ve ever made”.

The IB is recognised across the world for its quality. It encourages breadth, critical thinking and an international outlook, developing well-rounded students who go on to thrive. Most IB schools are independent, although as we have already heard, Varndean is one of the few state schools keeping this opportunity open for every student, irrespective of their family’s financial situation. If the Government allow these cuts to go ahead, it risks entrenching a two-tier education system, where access to this globally respected qualification is reserved for the wealthy. That cannot be right.

[Caroline Voaden]

The Government obviously have good intentions about improving the standard of post 16-education; I have seen that for myself on the Education Committee, so I do not doubt their intentions. However, this decision feels like levelling down rather than levelling up. Does my hon. Friend agree that instead of removing the opportunity for students in state schools to study the IB, the Government should consider broadening it and helping other schools to offer this world-class qualification?

[Alison Bennett]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I wholeheartedly agree with her.

The Government say they want to widen participation in higher education and to boost skills, but cutting funding for the IB does the opposite; it narrows opportunity and stifles aspiration. Therefore, I again urge the Minister to reconsider this decision, to ensure that schools such as Varndean can continue to offer this world-class qualification in the future.

Last Monday, during Education questions, I asked the Minister whether he would consider meeting students from Varndean. Given that Donna-Marie Janson, the school’s principal, is sitting behind me in the Public Gallery, I am sure that his officials could swap numbers with her and set up such a meeting, so will he arrange that meeting?

The IB is a symbol of what education should be— ambitious, inclusive and world class. We must not let it become the preserve of the few.