Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(4 days, 21 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Helen Hayes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. One of the reasons for the incredulity among those listening to the evidence yesterday was precisely that we recognise the addictive nature of social media. Frankly, the discussion yesterday felt like how a discussion about tobacco might have felt in the 1940s. The harm is so evident as to be undeniable, but the companies responsible for it continue to argue that the harm is minimal or non-existent and that anything in moderation is fine.
Helen Hayes
I will not take any further interventions because of the time left, if that is okay.
The need for urgent action to take children off social media in their crucial formative years is clear, so I welcome the Government’s consultation, the measures in the Bill to enable a ban and other regulatory measures to be introduced via statutory instrument with no need for further primary legislation.
In our evidence session yesterday, we also heard from academics about some of the complexity that must be considered if we are get to get a ban and any further regulatory measures right. For example, we questioned Roblox. It is not a social media company, because the primary activity on its platform is gaming, and it appeals to very young children. On Roblox, children can contact each other via a trusted friends feature and they can create content, and we have heard examples of some very disturbing content. They can be absorbed on their screens for hours at a time, and we know that there have been examples of children being groomed and contacted by people who want to do them harm. Roblox is not included in the Australian ban, because it is not a social media site, but there should be at least some consideration of the extent to which social media harms also extend to some gaming platforms, and of how children can be protected from that.
One of our witnesses questioned whether, in the UK context, 16 is the right age threshold for a ban. In Australia, young people do not have major exams at 16, and there should be consideration about whether the exact time that our young people are preparing for their GCSEs is the right time to be diving into social media for the first time, or whether a slightly younger or older threshold would be better. Next week, we will hear from parents and parent-led organisations, including the Molly Rose Foundation and Esther Ghey, the mother of Brianna Ghey. It is important to note that these stakeholders have different views, and we will explore their disagreement and common ground through our questioning.
When—not if—we regulate to remove the pernicious influence of social media from children’s lives, it is vital that our regulation is effective, and I am frustrated by Opposition Members’ lack of acknowledgement of that complexity and the importance of not only acting, but getting it right.
Finally, will the Minister set out a clear timescale for regulation under statutory instruments, so that parents can be assured that there is an end point to the debate on this issue and that action—the right and effective action that we need to keep our children safe—is coming?
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to have heard the last few speeches, which made very important points, but even with five minutes, time is still short for me. I will speak briefly about a couple of aspects of social media and mobile phones.
On social media, let us get on with it. We have had this issue come back from the Lords multiple times, and we can do this. There is a glaring logical flaw at the heart of the Government’s argument for not taking action—we have also heard it from a bunch of Labour MPs today—which is, “We can’t do this one thing, because there are some other things we could do as well.” That just does not hold water. All those other things—around gaming, other types of applications, chatbots, addictive features and so on—could be additive to a ban on social media for children under the age of 16. They would still, by the way, be very relevant to child safety. I remind the House that our duty to children extends to those aged up to 18, as per the Children Act 1989 and our commitments to the United Nations.
There are issues to resolve about a ban—exactly where the lines should be drawn; exactly what is in and what is out—and yes, of course, the Government have to consult on those issues, but they do not need to consult further on the principle of whether the country and the House of Commons want a ban on young people under the age of 16 accessing social media, a conclusion that so many other countries are also coming to.
On mobile phones, throughout the progress of the Bill, I have found a remarkable contrast. The Government said for so long that they would not ban phones in schools because there should be some discretion for headteachers, but they are going to tell them precisely how many items of branded school uniform they are allowed to specify, and will tell them that in secondary schools that could include a tie, but in primary schools, for some bizarre reason, it cannot.
I am pleased that the Government have partly seen the light. The Minister, whom we all like and respect, said last week that the problem had already been solved—and presumably it has now been re-solved, as the Government have come back to the issue—but I have to say that that is not what children say. What children tell us, both informally and when they are answering surveys about the actual use of mobile phones in schools, is how often lessons get interrupted, teachers are filmed, and bullying and other stuff happens at break times and lunchtimes. We need to act. Of course, there can be individual exceptions for those using assistive and adaptive technology, for young carers, and for others, but the one exception that we must not have is on the type of ban.
The critical question is about having a policy of “not seen, not heard”. Every school in the country, pretty much, already has at least that, but I am afraid that it is not effective as a ban. If you have this thing in your pocket, or in your bag at your foot, it is still there, and you feel its presence. If it vibrates, you might actually feel it, physically; but even if you do not, you feel that compulsion towards it. The only way to make a school truly free of the scourge of mobile phones is to have them away from the child. The “not seen, not heard” approach does not work.
The main argument for saying that we have to allow “not seen, not heard” is about cost. I understand that. Pouches, which a couple of colleagues have mentioned, do have a cost, but we do not have to do pouches. There are other ways of doing this. I mentioned the Petersfield school in my constituency, which has a phones-away-from-children ban, and which uses a simple device—a plastic box that can be purchased in most large-format Swedish retailers. That is locked away in a cupboard, along with a number of other boxes, until the end of the day. The biggest cost has been the foam inserts, with numbered slots in which each child puts their phone, but the sum total cost is very reasonable.
I want to answer the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), who is no longer with us, so to speak. He asked why had we not taken this measure when we were in government. That is a perfectly reasonable question. There are two reasons: first, the issue has become more acute; and, secondly, the attitude of headteachers. It has changed. We have gone from headteachers and their representative bodies saying, “The best way for you to support me in this school is not to impose a national ban,” to them saying the exact opposite—that the best way to support schools and headteachers is to have a ban written into law.
Damian Hinds
I think that would try Madam Deputy Speaker’s patience. Today is the day that we can take action on those two points.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(1 week, 4 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Graham Stuart
I thank the hon. Lady, but it is not like the Select Committee has never looked at this issue; it has looked at it repeatedly. If we are being unfair, then just let us know. What is the problem with banning smartphones in schools in the legislation? The hon. Lady has given an excellent answer, and I accept her offer and will ensure that I have a look at the evidence, but I still do not have an answer on what we are looking for. What we need is a ban. What the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) wants to see is a ban. We know that smartphones in school are harmful, and we need to get on with this.
The problem we face involves not just social media but smartphones. It is the combination of the two together. Smartphones give children constant access to social media, and social media gives them algorithms designed to keep them scrolling. That is why these amendments must be passed together. One tackles the addictive platforms; the other restores classrooms to places of learning.
We would never allow our children to be abandoned in a car park full of strangers, so why are we leaving them alone in chatrooms? Data from the Youth Endowment Fund shows that 70% of teenagers—vulnerable children—have seen violent content online, despite only 6% actively searching for it. That is all because of the algorithms. Children are not seeking extreme content; it is pushed at them. Knives, pornography and real-life violence are being delivered by addictive algorithms designed to keep children scrolling, all in the name of so-called fun. The parents in the Gallery and across the country are looking on and wondering what on earth is keeping us back. At a time when there is a disconnect between ordinary people and politics, it is obvious that we need to act. We have the opportunity to act—we have legislation that has a slot in Parliament—yet we are still coming up with bogus excuses for inaction. Parents have had enough.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I believe we are talking about two different things. On banning social media for under-16s, there is a complication there. We have seen what they have done in Australia, and what other countries are doing. We believe that our solution is the right one, because it is future-proof and would encompass every platform, every game and every piece of tech, but the issue of smartphones in schools is much, much simpler. We do not want phones in schools. We do not need phones in schools. We know that phones are in schools, and we need the Government to act on this; doing so would be simple, straightforward and quick. It could be done through this Bill, right now.
Graham Stuart
The hon. Lady is absolutely right. She makes a fair point about the greater complexity around social media. I would have liked greater clarity in this debate about what questions need to be answered, and how those answers would be pursued, but she is so right on the issue of smartphones. There is literally no reason not to act. I have been a Minister at the Dispatch Box, and with no disrespect to the excellent supporting civil servants, there is a tendency for Government, including the civil service, to resist all amendment and change. It becomes about defending the first script regardless, even when it is obvious that it should be changed. Even when there are parents in the Gallery who have suffered the most unimaginable loss, somehow the system still resists.
Graham Stuart
That is a simple logic, beautifully expressed. There is no argument against a ban, is there? Smoke is being blown in our faces.
The Minister is better than this. I say this to the Government Whip: I hope that the Government will listen in the Chamber tonight. I remember an Adjournment debate during my first Parliament, when we were again in opposition. Halfway through, the Minister tore up his briefing notes and said, “Actually, do you know what? It says here that I should resist this, but the hon. Member is right; I will seek legislation. We will get the opportunity and make the change that he has asked for, because what he says is true.” Should not all of us be trying to deal with what is true, right and proper? We must recognise complexity when it is there, but where there is a simple answer, we should simply get on with it.
Graham Stuart
I had better bring my remarks to a close; I have probably taken up too much time already.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
We are at a point where it is no longer credible to ignore the scale of the challenge posed by social media to children and young people. Platforms and algorithms are designed and deliberately engineered to maximise engagement, capture attention, and keep users scrolling for as long as possible. As adults, we can take responsibility for our own actions, but for children and those under the age of 16 whose brains are still developing, and who in their teenage years are naturally focused on social interaction and engagement, we have a responsibility to ensure that their mental health as well as their physical health is prioritised.
The harm is happening now; action is needed now, not after another consultation. Parents are asking for help, and as a mum I know how hard it is to set boundaries when a child says, “but everyone else has a phone” or “everyone else is on social media”. There are also serious safeguarding risks because, as we have heard, predators use these platforms to groom and exploit vulnerable young people. While many of us use social media and see some of its benefits, it is not all harmless fun. Shockingly, a quarter of primary school children have already been exposed to pornography, and from violent and sexual content to material that promotes self-harm, misogyny, eating disorders and other harmful behaviours, what young people are exposed to can be deeply disturbing. The problem is that children do not even have to go looking for such content—it finds them. If it is content that we would not want to see as adults, we have to ask what it is doing to our children.
That is why I am pleased to support Lords amendment 38, which would prevent under-16s from accessing and using social media platforms. This is not just a view held by Members on the Conservative Benches. Parents, teachers and safeguarding professionals all want to see change. Crucially, so do young people themselves: they are the ones with first-hand experience of the influence of social media and, according to a YouGov poll, 83% of Gen Z support a social media age limit. We do not have time to waste on this issue. We must act decisively and put protections in place.
Caroline Voaden
I have spoken to lots of headteachers who are campaigning for a statutory ban on smartphones in schools. They say that if all the secondary schools in an area were to ban phones, children would not get smartphones at 11, when they transfer into year 7, and the age at which they would get a smartphone goes up to about 13 or 14. Parents would not be under pressure to buy a smartphone for their children when they are 10 or 11, so we would be gaining two or three really valuable years, when those children would not own a smartphone. Banning smartphones is not just about having an impact on school hours; it is about gaining that precious time so that children get phones when they are older. I beg the Minister to listen to that point.
Aphra Brandreth
I will now turn to why we need consistency for headteachers, schools, parents and children, particularly in relation to a mobile phone ban.
Lords amendment 106 mandates schools to prohibit the use and possession of a smartphone during the school day. It is an amendment that could have been written in headteachers’ offices across my consistency. As we have heard, many schools already have some form of mobile phone ban, but guidance alone can lead to inconsistencies, making it harder to enforce rules and leaving parents and young people navigating mixed messages, especially when children compare themselves to friends from other schools, and when parents look to each other for advice on what their children are allowed to do.
Since my election, I have met with headteachers from across Chester South and Eddisbury, and the amendment sets out exactly the kind of framework that they are asking for—one that gives them the clarity and backing to enforce what many are already trying to do. I recognise that earlier this year the Secretary of State issued further guidance on smartphone use in schools, but advisory guidance is not enough. It needs to be statutory: clear, robust action that meets the scale of the challenge, because without it, we are asking teachers to deliver change without giving them the backing to do so.
Ultimately, we have a duty to protect our children, and that means acting now, not later. Parents, teachers and young people are asking for change. This House should listen and I urge colleagues to support these amendments.
SEND Provision and Reform
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(1 week, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have run out of time for Back-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
9.35 pm
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing this debate. It is clear from the passionate contributions we have heard that the problems are widespread and the SEND system is completely broken. We have all heard the anguish of parents, and we have read the dreadful stories of desperate children who have lost their lives because of failures in this system.
In that context, I welcome the Government’s recent White Paper as an important step in the right direction. We have to address the growing need and, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) said so passionately, we cannot limit provision because there is too much need. The earlier we identify need and start addressing it, the better the outcomes will be for children, parents, families and society as a whole.
We have had to wait for this White Paper, but putting the delays to one side, we are here now and the Liberal Democrats welcome the central focus on inclusion through improving support in mainstream settings. If children with SEND can attend a local school, they can stay connected with their friends and be part of their local community, and their family can engage better with their school. Inclusion bases are welcome, and they include the one being opened at King Edward VI community college in my constituency, with a focus on bringing children back into school after dropping out, following a difficult transition into year 7, and helping them to become part of the school community again. This model has good potential to succeed if properly resourced. However, many questions remain about funding, children’s rights and staffing.
On funding, the £4 billion pledge to accompany the upcoming reforms, plus capital spending and the council debt write-off, are welcome, but we are worried that the Government are holding councils to ransom by tying this debt relief to restrictions on special school expansion. The Government must also provide clarity on where the new funding, including the council deficit write-off, is coming from. The Liberal Democrats are very concerned that other areas of the wider schools budget may be cut, even though there is nothing left to give. The Government have introduced some good policies but have failed to fully fund them, including breakfast clubs, the expansion of free school meals, even teacher pay rises, and, today, the healthy school standards. That will be more expensive, so will it be fully funded for schools?
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Caroline Voaden
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
Schools and local authorities are already at breaking point and are now being asked to deliver even more, including running two SEND systems in parallel during the transition period.
On parental rights, parents have expressed deep concern about changes to the tribunal system. Removing power from SEND tribunals to direct a local authority to name a specific setting will give parents even less opportunity to choose a setting that suits their child. Given that currently 99% of tribunal cases are won by families against the local authority, how can we trust that local authorities will suddenly start getting it right under the new system?
The Liberal Democrats are clear that stripping back parents’ ability to challenge the system is unacceptable. The anxiety of parents is understandable. Many are worried that their child will lose existing support or not receive the support they need under the new system. Will the Minister guarantee that legal rights will not be stripped away, that settled placements will not be disrupted, and that accountability, including meaningful routes of appeal, will remain strong and effective? It is absolutely vital that children and families remain at the heart of these reforms and retain the key rights that they have.
On staffing, we welcome the Experts at Hand service to embed specialists such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists into mainstream schools, but we need a credible workforce plan to see how the Government are going to recruit and train all the staff needed and encourage trained specialists back into the profession. I am concerned about the need for more learning support staff—the people who are absolutely crucial to delivering these reforms and ensuring that mainstream inclusion works effectively. Schools are being forced to cut learning support staff due to the financial pressures they are facing, but a SEND system focused on inclusion simply cannot be implemented without them, so I would like to hear further detail from the Minister about how the Government believe schools can deliver an inclusive approach for all children without funding more support staff.
Away from budgets and staffing, there are other changes that we can make in the way that we run our schools that would make them accessible for all children. Curriculum reform is vital to inclusion. Learning how to express and process emotion through music, drama, creative arts, sport and outdoor play is vital not just for children’s mental health, but for their emotional development, and it simply must be given more space. We believe that the current direction of travel is the right one, but all these reforms must be fully funded, fully staffed and fully consulted upon with those who will be impacted most by the changes—the parents and the children with SEND who are so often not heard.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Caroline Voaden Excerpts(1 month, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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(1 month, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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(3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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(3 months, 1 week ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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)
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(3 months, 3 weeks ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
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.