Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 22nd June 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing the House’s attention to Bucks College Group and the work it does in her constituency. FE colleges have autonomy over staff pay. We have provided an additional £190 million for colleges and 16-to-19 providers for this financial year, which is broadly equivalent to the schools pay award. We have also set out positive new developments on FE teacher training support.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I recently met Alex Miles, managing director of Yorkshire Learning Providers, and heard a worrying tale that differs greatly from what the Minister has told the House today. I heard that established apprenticeship standards are being defunded and that new product foundation apprenticeships that no employer in Yorkshire has asked for are being rolled out. Yorkshire Learning Providers has no partisan points to make; it just wants to ensure that young people can get into work with an apprenticeship standard that works for them and for employers. Does the Minister accept that the Government are not getting this right and that he needs to look at this again?

[Josh MacAlister]

I thank the right hon. Member for the question and the serious spirit in which he asks it. We are providing £9 billion of funding for 16-to-19 programmes in the 2026-27 academic year. We are making a wider range of changes to further education support, qualification routes and apprenticeships to directly respond to the kinds of criticisms from providers and employers that he refers to, and I genuinely believe that the Government have got that right. If there are particular aspects that Alex Miles wants to write to me about, I will be happy to take a look.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 15th April 2026 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will address smartphones in schools in a moment. Our consultation allows us to act at real speed. Through the additions we are making to the Bill today, we are committing to report back to the House within six months, if we have not acted before then. The range of options that we are considering in the consultation is significantly wider than the options in the amendments from the other place that we are debating. The consultation will allow us to address a much wider range of issues, including critical ones, such as addictive design.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I apologise, but I am going to make some progress.

I turn to Lords amendment 106, which deals with phones in schools. The amendment is unnecessary, as this Government are already crystal clear that mobile phones have no place in schools at any point during the school day. We have strengthened the weak guidance provided by the Conservative party to make it absolutely clear that schools should be mobile-free environments by default. We have written to every headteacher in the country to tell them that phones should not be in their schools. We have asked Ofsted to ensure that phone bans are properly enforced, and we have rolled out targeted support, through our attendance and behaviour hubs, for every school that is struggling to make that ban a reality. The Conservative party seems to be deliberately ignoring those facts. Of course, if the consultation tells me that making the guidance statutory will make a difference, we will do it—our amendment in lieu makes that possible—but my honest opinion is that the issue is not whether or not the ban is on the statute book. Rather, the problem is with the clarity of the guidance, and the quality and enforcement of policies, and we have already acted to fix all three.

[Olivia Bailey]

I do congratulate the hon. Member’s constituent on her work, and can confirm that there is provision in the guidance—which he can show her—for schools to make exceptions for such exceptional cases.

I turn to amendments dealing with school uniforms and admissions. On Lords amendment 41B, I welcome their lordships’ support for tackling school uniform costs. However, the amendment is unnecessary, and risks creating uncertainty for schools and parents about the Government’s intent and the direction of policy at a time when they will be implementing the limit. The Department for Education has surveyed parents and school leaders extensively over many years on school uniform policies, and we will continue to monitor the impact of this measure, informed by the latest available evidence.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

We have also already committed to strengthening statutory guidance to clarify that high-cost compulsory items should be avoided, and will keep that guidance under review. As the legislation requires, we will also conduct a post-implementation review to capture the actual impact of the implemented policy and assess any modifications recommended as a result of that review.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am just concluding this section of my remarks, but the right hon. Member is very persistent.

I have previously been clear on our concerns about a cost cap. A numerical limit is simpler, transparent, enforceable and overwhelmingly backed by parents. It was also explicitly in the manifesto on which this Government were elected.

[Graham Stuart]

I think anyone outside this place watching would think that the reason why the Minister will not accept the Liberal Democrat amendment on this subject is a sort of pride and an inability to change on behalf of Government. There is no real argument against the amendment, and she has not made such an argument. Neither is there an argument against having an immediate statutory ban on social media. Her earlier argument about the addictive design of social media being included in the consultation made no sense either, because if no children under 16 can access social media, it does not matter how it is designed, because it will not be having the noxious effect it currently has on them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

Since I last stood at this Dispatch Box to argue, again, that we should stop ignoring the evidence and act to ban social media for under-16s, 12 individuals in California have done something remarkable. They have begun to turn the tide against the use of social media by children. On 25 March, a jury in Los Angeles delivered a landmark verdict: they found two social media giants responsible for injuries suffered by a young woman over the course of her childhood. The conclusion was stark. These companies knew that their platforms were addictive. They knew the risks to young people and they chose not to act, and children have paid the price. The jury did not ignore the evidence, and nor should this House.

That is not an isolated case. It is the beginning of something much larger. Eight further trials are already scheduled in California alone, and federal cases brought by states and school districts will follow this summer. Behind them stand thousands of claimants waiting to be heard. Here in the United Kingdom, however, we are still watching rather than acting. This ruling should have made the Government stop dragging their feet. It confirms what parents, teachers and health professionals have been saying for years. Aggressive, addictive algorithms are damaging children’s mental health, and, in the worst cases, costing them their lives.

[Graham Stuart]

Does my right hon. Friend share with me a certain sympathy for the Minister, who has obviously been ordered by the Secretary of State to come and make the preposterous case that on the one hand the whole problem has been solved and on the other—in a complete logical contradistinction—if the consultation concludes that this does need to be put in statute, the Government will then go about doing it? Well, which is it? Have they solved the problem, as the Minister claimed, or could the consultation yet tell us that it needs to be legislated for? Clearly it needs to be legislated for, and clearly the Minister—who is smart, likeable and decent, and committed to the welfare of children—has been put in an impossible position, arguing a ridiculous case. Does my right hon. Friend agree?

[Laura Trott]

As ever, my right hon. Friend is entirely correct. The evidence is irrefutable, and the Government need to get on with it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)]

A decade ago, I raised the heartbreak that siblings in the care system suffer when they are separated and have no contact with each other. My aim was simply to create parity in legislation, by extending the requirement for a looked-after child’s reasonable contact with their parents to contact with their siblings or half-siblings. What followed were amendments, debates, early-day motions, articles, questions, ministerial meetings and letters—so many letters. Every single time, I was advised that there was sympathy for my request, but nothing ever changed—until now. Under this Labour Government, we are finally putting an end to the cruelty in our care system that separates siblings and denies them contact with each other.

When I heard my noble Friends in the other place carry unopposed Lords amendment 17B—the same amendment that I moved in 2016—I was for once completely lost for words. This may seem like a very small change to legislation, but it is not. It will make a profound difference to the lives of so many children, including children whose lives are already more difficult than many of us in this place can even begin to comprehend.

Like everything that happens in this place, it was not a solo endeavour. If the Chamber would please indulge me for a moment, I want to thank all the MPs across the House who over the years have supported this change; my right hon. and hon. Friends in our Education team; Cathy Ashley and the team at the Family Rights Group who, way back, helped me craft the amendment; and my friend the broadcaster and journalist Ashley John-Baptiste, who powerfully used his experience of the care system, in which he grew up never knowing that he had siblings, to help press for this change.

That leads me to who I want to thank most of all: the children I worked with in my former career. I promised them that if I ever made it into this place, I would do absolutely everything in my power to change legislation that causes them further pain and distress.

[Graham Stuart]

I just want to say thank you to the hon. Lady for persisting, and showing what a Back Bencher can do by persisting, keeping going, winning the argument, bringing it around and making a material difference to the lives of people who, as she said, already suffer enough.

[Emma Lewell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention—possibly one of the nicest interventions I have ever had in this place.

I hope that if those children I worked with are listening now, they will know that I have honoured my word to them. It may have taken me a decade and they will now be adults, but I sincerely hope they know that this is for them and it is they who have made sure that other little ones will never ever have to go through what they had to go through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. We have had significant and interesting contributions from both sides of the House so far. I will speak in support of Lords amendments 38 and 106. As the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) just set out in a powerful speech, social media is too often toxic in its effect on children, and parents who want to act—again, exactly as he just pointed out—fear isolating their children from their friends who are all online. Teachers, who want to protect children, spend their days investigating claims of cyber-bullying instead of boosting learning, which is their job. Our children struggle to escape the clutches of algorithms that are designed to be addictive.

That is why I will vote for Lords amendment 38, to save children from that toxic world and give them their childhood back. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott) said, it is a “fight for childhood”. That is a good slogan, because unlike most slogans it has some real heart and substance to it.

We need to support parents like John in Beverley, who tells me that his children feel constant pressure to be online and compare themselves endlessly with others. John is right. Those of us who are parents know that sometimes the kindest word we can say to a child is no—only to hear the inevitable response, “But Billy’s mum lets him do it.” It is not fair that parents like John, who are doing their best each day, face that battle alone.

Lords amendment 38 sets a clear boundary so that parents are not isolated in their decision making, and when John’s children ask why they cannot go on Instagram, he can say, “Sorry, but that is the law.” Since MPs seem to get blamed for pretty much everything else, if parents say, “It’s because Graham says you can’t; it’s not my fault,” I will take that. If as a result one child is happier and healthier, that is something we can all be pleased with.

Parents are not alone in saying that the relationship with technology is broken; teachers say it too. Hannah, a teacher from Hedon in my constituency, tells me that she deals with the consequences of online harms every single day and she fears the long-term impact on her pupils. Teachers such as Hannah are spending their time investigating what pupils have seen on Facebook or X, when, as I say, they should be teaching physics or art.

In too many schools, smartphones are everywhere. I never seek to be rude, and in particular not to the Minister, but she suggests that the problem is solved. The problem is not solved. Smartphones are everywhere in too many schools, meaning that students are scrolling, not learning, and staff are policing, not teaching. That is why I will also vote for amendment 106, which would require schools to ban smartphones during the school day. It means that governing bodies, headteachers and parents—whoever—have absolute clarity.

I did not really understand the Minister’s argument, suggesting that passing it into law would not have effect. If we pass a law to ban smartphones in schools, in primary legislation, I would be pretty confident that that would mean that schools would not have smartphones during the school day. She has probably been put up to it by her Secretary of State, who will not let her do the obvious and sensible thing, which is to listen to colleagues on all sides of the House. The hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales studiously stuck to the party line but none the less made an emotionally powerful argument for action now, albeit just managing to say, “Well, if you have to do your consultation, get on with it.”

The arguments from the Minister do not really stack up. This is not political point scoring—I hope it is not —but children are suffering every single day and month that this goes on. If we know that it is wrong, if we know that it is harmful, if we know that it is damaging children’s futures and their mental health—we have parents in the Public Gallery who have lost their children as a result of this stuff—how can we say that we are just being thorough when there are no clear questions that we need an answer to and no clear questions were set out?

[Helen Hayes]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Graham Stuart]

I will happily give way to the hon. Lady, who is an expert in this area.

[Helen Hayes]

I believe that there is a consensus across this House, both about the harms of social media and smartphones for our young people and about the urgent need for action. I have listened carefully to the contributions from Opposition Members but have heard no acknowledgment that, on some points of detail, there is genuine disagreement between different important stakeholders—including bereaved parents—on what exactly the solutions should look like. The Government’s consultation is affording the opportunity, for example, to the Education Committee to undertake some really detailed questioning of those important stakeholders who have differences of opinion. That will help the Government get to the right and effective approach. Will the right hon. Gentleman at least acknowledge that difference of opinion and the importance of probing it?

[Graham Stuart]

Again, with no disrespect to the Minister, I think the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) has made a stronger case, but lacking in the specifics. It would be important to understand exactly what it is that the Government wish to find out. Then we could better understand why there would be a cause for delay. I have not been able to understand precisely what that is.

Let us take the issue of smartphones in schools. We have absolute denunciation from the Minister of the use of smartphones in schools, yet a kind of smokescreen has been thrown up that somehow passing into statute that smartphones cannot be in schools during the school day is somehow not the solution. If there is evidence to suggest that schools will disapply primary statute that says smartphones can never be used in schools during the school day, and that headteachers up and down the land will literally break the law, okay, let us hear it. That seems like nonsense to me. What case is there? What do we need to know about smartphones to not just put this in the Bill and, as soon as it becomes law, see every single school in the land ensure that there are no smartphones, with no argument? It is obvious, is it not? I will happily give away to the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood again.

[Helen Hayes]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman, who is being generous in giving way. I think he would find it helpful to listen to the Education Committee’s evidence session on Tuesday next week, which will afford two hours of questioning of experts and important stakeholders in the field. I believe that we will make a useful contribution to helping the Government get to the right and implementable solutions during the consultation process. I encourage him to tune in to that.

[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.

[Iqbal Mohamed]

Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that banning mobile phones in schools will not harm children, and that not banning them does harm children?

[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.

[Caroline Voaden]

rose—

[Graham Stuart]

I had better bring my remarks to a close; I have probably taken up too much time already.

[Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Lab)]

True.

[Graham Stuart]

Thanks very much—the Government Whip agrees with me; that is always nice.

Let us act, listen to the parents and the people out there, and get on it. I know that the Ministers on the Front Bench do not get up in the morning to make the world a worse place, let alone to make children suffer. They are here to try to make children’s lives better, and there is a real opportunity here to do that. I hope that Government Members will consider breaking from the fearsome Whips—we have heard the Government Whip shouting from a sedentary position. Tell him that he is best ignored, and vote with us to make things better for children.

[Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)]

Let me start by saying that I support the Government’s direction of travel on this Bill. The focus on children’s wellbeing, both in schools and out, is obviously right, but let me address Lords amendment 38, tabled by Lord Nash, about social media access; it was accepted back into the Bill, with a large majority. It has cross-party support and reflects growing concern not just in Parliament, but among parents, teachers and professionals working with young people.

The amendment is quite simple: it is about delaying access to certain harmful social media services until children are 16. It is not a blanket ban or a restriction on everything, but targeted measures aimed at services that are not designed with children in mind. That distinction matters, because some criticism has suggested that the amendment would create cliff edges, but we already have age limits in place today. The issue is not whether limits should exist; it is whether they are properly enforced, and whether they reflect the reality of how platforms operate.

There has been a lot of debate about whether age verification actually works. The evidence from countries like Australia suggests that where it is not working, it is often because platforms are not properly enforcing the rules, or young people find ways around the ban through VPNs. That leads to a broader point: the onus must be squarely with the tech companies to implement the safeguards. Where the law sets a clear standard, platforms must meet it consistently and effectively.

Student Loans

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Laura Trott]

If the hon. Lady thinks the system is broken, I invite her to vote for our motion.

Every metric for young people has got worse since this Government came in. It is crystal clear that for young people, as for the rest of the country, Labour is not working.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will have noted, as I have, that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and other Labour Members wish to talk about the past. Our constituents, and graduates who are paying these outrageous sums, want to talk about the future. At the general election, they listened to Labour’s promises on lowering costs for graduates, but the Government are doing exactly the opposite. By deflecting and talking about the past rather than accepting responsibility for the government that they are delivering, Labour Members are letting down all those young people, whose aspirations should be respected.

[Laura Trott]

My right hon. Friend is quite right: not only did Labour mislead the public, but it then made things worse. Now, Labour Members will not vote to fix it. That is Labour all over.

We need a plan to fix the problem, but it is not enough to fiddle with one part of the problem. We need comprehensive change, and that is exactly what we Conservatives have come up with: a new deal for young people. The plan, which could be implemented today, would reverse the threshold freeze, make interest rates for plan 2 loans inflation-only, stop dead-end degrees, and boost apprenticeships so that young people have real choice when they leave school, not a future weighed down by debt.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

We are absolutely committed to driving up the quality of all university courses, and we are acting on that.

Conservative Members have attacked arts and creative courses as the areas where they would like to see a reduction. We have just seen the British talent at the Brits and the Oscars. This is one of our highest-growth industries. We saw this in our schools when there was a reduction in education in the arts, and we are seeing it now as the Conservatives attack those courses in universities.

[Graham Stuart]

Young people in my constituency are looking for a bit of hope. How should they interpret the Minister’s answer to her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and the fact that the Chancellor has said that young people are at the back of the queue? From that very recent mood music, it does not sound as if there is much to hope for from this Government.

[Georgia Gould]

I have spent the last few months travelling around the country talking to young people about the investment that Labour is putting in to support young people with special educational needs and to support schools and youth clubs. That is what the Labour party is doing in power, and there is huge hope that comes from that. Those are the areas where we need to prioritise investment.

The chance to study in higher education for those who want to and who have the ability to changes lives. We are determined to support students who want to go to university to fulfil their aspirations. We must not lose sight of the value that student loans provide in enabling that and levelling the playing field at the point of access. They remove the up-front financial barriers to study and enable students to repay when they are earning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Sollom]

The history of access to university demonstrates that point well.

[Graham Stuart]

I am trying to follow the mental perambulations of the left. The argument seems to be that people from working-class backgrounds can go on courses that lead them to have negative outcomes—poor earnings—and that the very course they are on, which does them little good, with so much promised and so little delivered, actually has the opportunity to cross-subsidise other people doing other courses. Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) seem to think that is a good thing. Can they not see that, in reality, it is not?

[Ian Sollom]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because that is one part of the argument I am making. There is a very important point about that, which is that it could equally be an argument for making the loan system fairer in its repayment terms to reflect that.

There is a deeper problem, too. The graduate earnings premium has declined in Britain, but not because we have too many graduates; it is because we have too few skilled jobs. That is a demand-side failure and a Conservative legacy. Our peers in OECD countries have expanded graduate numbers while maintaining the graduate premium, because they built the industries and invested in the regions that generate high-skilled employment. Cutting student numbers accepts our economic underperformance as permanent. It is, as I have said before, a counsel of despair dressed up as policy.

Then there are the creative industries: over £100 billion a year to the British economy; one of our most successful global exports; built on a pipeline of arts graduates. The answer is not to stop training the people on whom the whole pipeline depends. Ultimately, the value of an education cannot be read entirely from a graduate’s salary. The capacity for critical thinking, empathy and cultural participation are public goods, hidden in plain sight, that show up nowhere in write-off rates. A party that asks only “What does it pay?” has already decided something important about what it values.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Wrighting (Kettering) (Lab)]

Eighteen months ago, my constituents in Kettering chose to elect a 26-year-old as their MP. I believe they did so because they wanted a Labour Government, but also because young people in my constituency, and their parents and grandparents, wanted me to speak of my own experience of how tough it has been for my generation.

One of the tasks we navigate as MPs is how best to use our privileged position in this building to influence change.

As often one of the only young people in the Chamber, and almost always the only young woman—[Interruption.] Okay, depending on what we define as young. [Interruption.] Okay, let me say as one of the only women in their 20s in this Chamber, I try to share the perspective of a younger person. I often felt that that was missing in debates when I watched politics as I was growing up. I shall share that perspective in this debate using my own experience, and in doing so I hope to highlight the generational inequalities that have turned into deep-felt frustration—a frustration that made me join a political party, that made me campaign for a change in Government and that drives me in this place every single day.

I declare the fact that I have a plan 2 student loan close to £90,000. Before getting elected to this place, I was working full time for years, just watching my student loan grow. In Kettering, I grew up in a single-parent household. My mum, who is a youth worker, raised me by herself. At school, like so many others, I struggled to work out what I wanted to do and what I wanted my career path to look like. What I knew more than anything else was that I wanted to work hard enough to give myself a better life. It was so clearly communicated to me at school that that route to a better life was going to university. On reflection, I wish someone had spoken to me about apprenticeships and other options.

In the desire that many young people have to build themselves a better life, I and people around me did the things that we were told to do: we worked hard, we went to uni, and we got a degree. There is a lot said about what Gen Z expect from life, but ordinary hope and ordinary aspiration, despite what social media tells us, is not to live in Dubai, or to buy avocados and an iced matcha every day; it is to live in a home that we are not worried we will be kicked out of.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Lady is giving a powerful speech. On behalf of her generation, is she disappointed that, having promised to reduce the costs for graduates repaying student loans, the Government are making it worse? Is she disappointed that, when challenged over this broken system, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the hon. Lady and people like her are at the back of the queue?

[Rosie Wrighting]

There are many levers that this Government can pull to make life better for graduates. I understand that, given the economic situation, some of those levers are easier to pull than others. I am glad that measures such as the Renters’ Rights Act 2026 are coming forward and making a difference for my generation every single day. I have voiced my view that the system is not fair and that I would like my Government to look at it, and I think that that has been heard.

Let me return to what I was saying. We want to be able to live in a home that we are not worried we will get kicked out of, and even one day not to have to live with strangers or parents. We want to be able to make the choice to have a child if that is right, and to decide to go on holiday without maxing out our credit cards. I do not think that that is asking too much. That is hope and aspiration. I want to live in a country where it is reasonable for ordinary young people to want those things and, more importantly, to think that they are achievable.

Of all the damage that the Conservatives did, one of the worst things for me was the damage to hope. I started university in 2016. My tuition fees were £9,000 a year, but my maintenance loan was £12,000 a year. I am now paying back more not because my education cost more, but because I came from a low-income family and needed that support to live.

--- Later in debate ---

[Rosie Wrighting]

I appreciate that it is a start. I welcome our introduction of £1,000, but I do think there is more to do. I also acknowledge that we are in a tough economic environment and this is what the Government have chosen to prioritise.

It is not by accident that my generation have it so hard. Make no mistake: these decisions were taken by the Conservative party when they were in government. They asked my generation to do more with less, to bear a heavier burden, and then left us behind. The Tories calling this debate today, pretending that they have the answers to fix the system that they broke, is insulting to young people across this country.

[Graham Stuart]

Would the hon. Lady not find it rather worse if we were not reflecting on our time in power and the fact that we were thrown out and were not trying to come forward with constructive proposals to make things better? The important thing is to listen to people like the hon. Lady and our constituents, reflect and come forward with proposals. That is what we are doing. We are trying to look forward, not play some history game.

[Rosie Wrighting]

The previous Conservative Member who intervened asked me about 1997, so there is some looking back going on. I would welcome the Conservatives reflecting on their time in power, but unfortunately that is not what I have seen today and it is not the tone of the conversation that I hear coming from the party.

The Tories are calling on the Government to change the plan 2 repayment system, when they designed plan 2 student loans; to end repayment thresholds, when they froze them; and to create more apprenticeships, when they left one in eight young people not earning or learning. When we hear the Conservative party now proposing to cut interest rates on student loans, we have to ask: where was this concern when they were in government? Where was this concern for the thousands of young people—my peers, my friends, people around me—facing high student loan payments today?

The reality is that what Opposition Front Benchers are proposing would disproportionately benefit the highest earners—those most likely to pay off their loans in full—do little for the majority of graduates, and do almost nothing for those from low-income backgrounds, who are less likely ever to clear their debts. It is the same Conservative party.

I feel strongly that we now have a chance to say something to young people about their future, because after years of broken promises what we see is frustration, and something more dangerous than that: a loss of belief that working hard will mean people will get on. When that belief goes, opportunity goes with it. The real legacy of the last 14 years is not just high debt but diminished hope. I genuinely believe that it is only Labour that offers the chance to restore fairness between generations—not headline-grabbing tweets—and we are starting to do that by strengthening support for renters, delivering the youth guarantee, expanding childcare and taking steps to ensure that maintenance support works for students, not against them.

It is only Labour that can do something bigger and restore to an entire generation the belief that if you work hard, whether at school, at work, at university or through an apprenticeship, you can build a better life. That is a real life, with a secure home, the ability to start a family and confidence that efforts will be rewarded with opportunity. When my mum encouraged me to pursue education, she believed that she was giving me a better life. That is what young people deserve today: not just to be able to hope for a better future, but to have that within their reach.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex McIntyre]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased that I am coming to exactly that point later in my speech.

Of course there are challenges with this system. There were challenges with it back when it was introduced in 2012. We pointed out the fact that there are huge generational inequalities: there are hon. Members present in the Chamber who did not pay tuition fees at all and had lower house prices when they graduated, so they could afford to buy a house. Those challenges continue, and part of the reason that I got into politics was to deal with those intergenerational inequalities. We all talk about broken promises, but what happened to the promise about levelling up? In my mind, levelling up was about creating more opportunities for young people in places like mine in Gloucester, but those opportunities were never delivered by the Conservatives.

I want what is best for young people and for the university sector in my constituency. I am delighted to be able to take this opportunity to welcome the brand new university campus that the University of Gloucestershire has opened in the city centre, taking over the Debenhams building and creating a new campus for students, with a public library, so that young people in Gloucester can see what that opportunity looks like going forward.

We need to ensure that we are creating opportunities for all young people, because despite the move towards more people going to university, only a third of people in Gloucestershire will go to university, and in the most deprived parts of my constituency, that number is fewer than one in five. That is why I am proud that the Government are introducing maintenance grants, and why I am backing the new target of two thirds of young people going to university or doing gold-standard apprenticeships, because university might not be the best route for everybody. Generations of young people in my community were left behind by the Conservatives, who had no plan in Government for young people in my constituency.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech and we hear where he is coming from, but over the 14 years of Conservative Government, 800 jobs were created every day and unemployment was brought down to near record lows. Since his party has come to power, with the mission that he is describing, what has happened? Unemployment is up by 25% and youth unemployment has now eclipsed even that of Europe. The Government are not delivering. I hope in the next part of his speech, he is going to talk about what the Government need to do now in order to make things better for young people, because at the moment every indicator is going the wrong way, including the cost of student loans.

[Alex McIntyre]

I am always happy to be educated by privately educated Oxbridge graduates who did not pay a penny for their student fees. The right hon. Gentleman will find that employment levels have actually gone up. The number of people in employment has gone up under this Government—[Interruption.] Well, that’s the stat. If he wants to check, he is more than welcome to.

I welcome the youth guarantee that the Government have talked about this week, introducing more apprenticeships and opportunities for young people and tackling the people in my constituency who have been furthest from employment. My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Rosie Wrighting) made a fantastic speech about some of the other things we are doing for young people. It is not just about education; it is about renters’ rights and expanding free childcare.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kevin Bonavia]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. [Hon. Members: “Right honourable.”] Yes, right honourable —I remember her time as Chief Whip. Like her, I did not have the burdens that people who went to university after me had to face, so I am very conscious of my responsibility to those generations and the generations to come. I am glad that the right hon. Lady has raised the issue of young people, because this Government recognise the extra pressures that young people face. That is why we are taking measures to help those who are feeling the pressures of the cost of living, whether on transport, childcare, or so many other things. We are helping our younger people and looking at how we support our students into the future—we are bringing back the maintenance grants that I benefited from all those years ago.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kevin Bonavia]

One more time.

[Graham Stuart]

The hon. Gentleman said that the Government are helping young people, and mentioned transport. Bus fares have gone up by 50%, from £2 to £3; for somebody who travels every day to work and back, that is £500 a year out of taxed income. That is not helping. Fuel duty is going to go up in September—that is not helping. The cost of heating oil is going through the roof, and there is going to be nothing for anyone who goes to work—that is not helping either. Can the hon. Gentleman start to look at the reality of what is happening? It is not good for young people, and unemployment among young people is going up, not down.

[Kevin Bonavia]

I respectfully disagree with the right hon. Gentleman. He took me to task on transport; I come from a constituency where we desperately need more bus services. That is why we now have the Bus Services Act 2025, which I believe he would probably have voted against. We are making a difference for young people, and indeed all people who need to use those services.

The greatest responsibility we owe to the generations that will come after us is providing them with opportunities and lifting them up, not holding them back. We need to look at the tough issues and find answers to them. What the Opposition have tabled today is a motion that suggests that they can fix their own broken plan 2 loan system by

“controlling the number of places on university courses where the benefits are significantly outweighed by the cost to graduates and taxpayers.”

How on earth are they going to find out what those courses are? The shadow Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), plucked some of them from the air—“Oh, we’re not sure about some of these creative arts courses.” How is she going to evaluate that? Are we going to have a commission? Is the party of the free market going to control the market? How is it going to do that?

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 2nd March 2026 Commons Chamber

[Josh MacAlister]

I recognise my hon. Friend’s description of recent history and how we have ended up where we are today. We will consider ways to make the system fairer. As I say, there are a range of options, and we need to do it carefully.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Sammi from Keyingham in my constituency, who was one of the first in her family to go to university, graduated in 2016 after borrowing £40,000. She has now been working in the medical field for over four years, but that £40,000 has grown to £46,000. I was glad to hear the Minister’s previous answer, but Sammi and others want to hear that there will be concrete action to stop the outrageous interest, which is higher than one would expect for a personal loan or a mortgage. Will the Minister do something about it?

[Josh MacAlister]

I hope the right hon. Member started by apologising to Sammi in his correspondence, because the last Government froze the threshold on 10 separate occasions. I could list them all. They started in the year that the policy was designed and introduced—the same year in which the commitment was made to increase the threshold in line with inflation, which the Conservatives did not do.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Georgia Gould]

We have commissioned research to strengthen the evidence base of what works to improve inclusive practice in mainstream settings, including for sensory impairment, and I look forward to discussing what more we can do together later this week.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Blind and partially sighted children in the East Riding of Yorkshire receive lower funding through the higher needs block than anywhere else in the country, yet in the settlement the East Riding will receive the smallest increase in the country at just 2%, compared with an average of over 6%. How can it possibly be justified that children in the rural, coastal East Riding of Yorkshire, who are already the worst funded in the country, are going to see the gap widen? Minister, please explain.

[Georgia Gould]

Revenue funding for young people with complex SEND has increased by £1.8 billion since July 2024, bringing total high-needs funding to well over £12 billion. Will be setting out more in the schools White Paper around further funding and how that is distributed.

Creative Education

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 9th December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Graham Stuart (in the Chair)]

I remind hon. Members that they may only make a speech with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.

[Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered creative education in schools.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I welcome the Government’s curriculum and assessment review, which recognises the need for a broad and balanced curriculum and recommends the removal of the English baccalaureate, allowing greater space for arts subjects. At present, far too many children do not have access to these opportunities. Research from the Arts and Minds Campaign reveals that participation in arts subjects at GCSE has fallen by 42% since 2010, even though 90% of young people want to study a creative subject. The decline is sharpest in the most disadvantaged communities. School leaders in socially deprived areas are almost 50% more likely to report being unable to find specialist arts teachers, and one in four schools does not have the funding to run creative GCSEs at all.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Olivia Bailey]

I encourage the hon. Lady to write to me with the details of that case, because we are absolutely clear that in this rapid expansion of childcare—which half a million children have been able to access this September—those 30 hours should be available, and it should not be the case that extras are charged or anything else. I am happy to look at the specifics of the case.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Minister is new to the Dispatch Box, so perhaps we can forgive her for suggesting that the Conservatives cut the number of family hubs, since we invented them. Focusing on the issue of cost and moving away from primary schools, private providers are finding that the jobs tax and other hits are making it more and more difficult to pay the bills and ensure that that entitlement—which we all want to see given to parents—is delivered. Can I invite the hon. Lady to give any reflections from her early days as a Minister on how we can deliver that? Can she reach out to those in the Treasury and elsewhere to make them understand the ecosystem in which those providers sit?

[Olivia Bailey]

Sure Start was one of the greatest successes of the last Labour Government, and it drove significant improvements for our children. The Conservative party systematically dismantled that across our country, with significant negative consequences for our children and young people. When this Government say that we are prioritising early years, we are putting our money where our mouth is—unlike the Conservatives, who had a pledge with absolutely no plan—with £8 billion this year and £9 billion next year to expand childcare and give every child the best start in life.

Oral Answers to Questions

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for the tireless work she has done on these important issues in this place. We are grateful for the contribution of 3 Dads Walking in developing the new RSHE guidance and we pay tribute to their inspirational determination and the courage shown in their work to raise awareness. The guidance contains new content about coping strategies for dealing with issues such as anxiety, but also covers issues such as loneliness and bereavement. It says that schools should “consider carefully” how to address suicide prevention safely.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Great leadership is critical to supporting children to have a healthy mental condition. Will the Minister join me in congratulating Leon Myers, the headteacher of Swinemoor primary school, on the twice-repeated outstanding rating for that school, on his focus on the traditional values of endeavour, resilience and competitive spirit, and on his recent MBE in recognition of the transformation of opportunity he provides to children across the Swinemoor estate?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the right hon. Member for his question, and I pay tribute to the member of staff he mentioned and all those who work across the education system to deliver improvements in life chances for all young people; I thank him very much for his hard work.

Generative Artificial Intelligence: Schools

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Jeremy. I thank my near-ish neighbour, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), for securing a debate on this important subject and for the constructive and collegiate way in which he has sought to conduct it. I thank all other Members for their interventions and contributions, including the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), for her insightful comments on challenges and opportunities and her helpful reminder of the Committee’s work on screen time.

The Government believe that generative artificial intelligence presents exciting opportunities to improve people’s lives, including by making our public services better. AI will support the delivery of the Government’s plan for change and our opportunity mission. I agree with the comments of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Swindon North (Will Stone) and for Dulwich and West Norwood and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, about the potential for AI and technology to support children with special educational needs. There is a strong evidence base for the impact that assistive technology such as screen readers and dictation tools can have in breaking down barriers to opportunity for children with SEND.

If used safely, effectively and with the right infrastructure in place, AI can support every child and young person, regardless of their background, to achieve at school and college and develop the knowledge and skills that they need for life. AI has the potential to ease workloads, assist with lesson planning and free up time for high-quality face-to-face teaching. That is why we have put AI at the forefront of our mission to modernise the education system, to support our teachers and school support staff and to enable them to deliver better educational outcomes for our children. The Department’s approach to generative AI in education is not static. It will continue to develop as our evidence and understanding grow.

The Government are leading the way. As announced at the Education World Forum in May, we will host an international summit on generative AI in education in 2026, bringing together education leaders from around the world to implement global guidelines for generative AI in education. We are committed to taking action that considers the risks, such as safety, and challenges, alongside opportunities and benefits. I assure the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) that those discussions include ministerial colleagues across the UK. He will know that education is a devolved matter, but I can confirm that I had discussions with my ministerial equivalent in Northern Ireland during my visit to Belfast last month.

We have taken action to make sure that AI can be effectively used in schools. We have funded Oak National Academy’s AI lesson planning assistant, Aila, which helps teachers save significant time with lesson planning. Teachers report time savings of around three hours per week.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire was right to mention support through the effective use of AI. Further, we launched the content store pilot in August of last year, aiming to make available the underpinning content and data that are needed for great AI tools. Coupled with investment in the AI tools for education competition, we are supporting edtech innovators to develop effective AI tools that can reduce the burden of feedback and marking on teachers.

Last month, I attended London Tech Week and announced an additional £1 million in contracts to further develop existing prototype tools so that they are ready to be used in the classroom. I saw demonstrations of tools developed at a hackathon using our innovative education content store. I also saw at first hand the value of that store and the importance of making available the underpinning content and data to develop excellent AI tools for education.

We know that any advancement in technology presents risks as well as opportunities, which is why we are taking steps to manage these proactively, including through safeguards and by gathering robust evidence on AI use.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will give way, but I am conscious that the right hon. Gentleman was not here at the start of the debate.

[Graham Stuart]

I apologise for not being here at the start, and I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. To what extent is he concerned about biases within the models? Most of the major generative AI models are not produced in this country; they are developed in highly competitive circumstances and tend to be secretive about the data used to train them. Is that an area of concern? If he thinks there are going to be more applications in the education sphere and others, should the Government take steps to ensure greater transparency about the data upon which these models are trained?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will certainly take that back. I have had discussions with colleagues at the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology and others about reliability, safety and biases.

In November last year, with the Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield North (Feryal Clark), I met leading global tech firms, including Google, Microsoft and Adobe, to agree safety expectations and to ensure that AI tools are safe for classroom use. We are also supporting staff to use AI safely. In partnership with the Chiltern Learning Trust and the Chartered College of Teaching, we have published online support materials to help teachers and leaders to use AI safely and effectively, developed by the sector, for the sector. They supplement the Department’s AI policy paper—which we updated in June—alongside the information for educators about using AI safely and effectively, and the toolkit for leaders to help address the risks and opportunities of AI across their whole setting.

To develop our evidence base, we have launched two pilot programmes, the edtech evidence board and the edtech testbed. The first is to ensure that schools have the confidence to secure edtech products that work well for their setting, and the second is to evaluate the impact of edtech and AI products on improving staff workload, pupil outcomes and inclusivity. I want to assure all hon. Members that we will continue to work with schools to support them in harnessing opportunities and managing potential challenges presented by generative AI.

A number of hon. Members, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin), spoke about social media, and “Keeping children safe in education” is statutory guidance that provides schools and colleges with robust information on how to protect pupils and students online. The guidance has been significantly strengthened with regard to online safety, which is now embedded throughout, making clear the importance of taking a whole-school approach to keeping children safe online. The DFE is working across Government to implement the Online Safety Act 2023 and to address technology-related risks, including AI in education. I can assure the hon. Member for Guildford that it is a priority for us to ensure that children benefit from its protections.

On the point that a number of hon. Members made about the impact on qualifications, assessment and regulation, the majority of GCSE and A-level assessments are exams taken under close staff supervision, with no access to the internet. Schools, colleges and awarding organisations are continuing to take reasonable steps to prevent malpractice involving the use of generative AI in formal assessments. Ofqual is, of course, the independent regulator of qualifications and assessments, and published its approach to regulating AI use in the qualifications sector in 2024. Ofqual supported the production of guidance from the Joint Council for Qualifications on the use of AI in assessments. That guidance provides teachers and exam centres with information to help them to prevent and identify potential malpractice involving the misuse of AI.

More broadly, the curriculum and assessment review’s interim report acknowledged risks concerning AI use in coursework assessments. The review is taking a subject-by-subject approach to consider assessment fitness for purpose and the impact of different assessment methods on teaching and learning. I assure Members that the review is considering potential risks, the trade-offs with non-exam assessment such as deliverability, and the risks of malpractice and to equity.

Department for Education

Graham Stuart Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I want to talk about the real-life impacts of the decisions in the education estimates, and specifically, due to the short amount of time, on school funding.

There is a village in my constituency called Buckland Monachorum for whom school funding is a particularly pertinent issue. It is in the middle of campaigning, because the local trust responsible for the school is having to restructure from September. That is entirely because of the cuts schools are facing and the knock-on impacts from the Budget that we have heard about. The restructuring is causing huge consternation among parents. There are complaints, a campaign—as I said—and a huge amount of stress, as they face a different future to the one they were expecting.

The Learning Academy Partnership trust, which is responsible for the school, has shared figures with me that highlight the reality of the funding changes that it is facing. It also has one of the schools that falls foul of the f40 inconsistencies we have heard about. It is worth saying briefly that secondary schools in Devon can see as much as £1 million less in funding than equivalent schools in a city such as Manchester. An hon. Gentleman said earlier that city schools need more money. I hear that, but rural deprivation is a key reality, too, and we need to do more to address it.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

I am extremely grateful to be cheekily coming in at this point, but the East Riding of Yorkshire is the lowest-funded authority in the country for SEN. I hope we might hear from the Minister about how the distribution, as well as the quantum, can be made fairer. Unfair distribution exacerbates the strain in the system.

[Rebecca Smith]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree that, and there are issues right across the country.

The trust in my constituency is facing financial pressures: teacher pay awards, unfunded beyond 1.7%, mean a 4% increase, costing £359,330; support staff pay awards, unfunded beyond 0.9%, mean a 3.2% increase, costing £295,000; and teacher pension increases, support staff pensions and the national insurance increases have a total cost of £349,000, with £76,000 unfunded due to pupil-based funding. That is a problem right across Devon. We are concerned because it means ultimately that those local village schools will have to take a direct hit, which is something that neither the parents nor the teachers, nor the trusts that are responsible, want to see.

A big part of this issue is about the reduction in the general annual grant—a real-terms reduction of £200,000 in 2025-26, plus 0.5% redirected by Devon local authority to special educational needs. This will have a massive impact on the most vulnerable children right across the community; ultimately, it will not enable them to get the education they require.

Briefly, I want to ask the Minister about the future of schools in places like Dartmoor in Devon, and especially the schools that fall foul of the f40 formula issues. What can the Minister do to reassure the parents, teachers, other staff and children, most importantly, whom I represent, who will ultimately pay the price for these cuts, intentional or not? What reassurances can she offer in response to their pleas and my pleas for children and young people in South West Devon to have the funding they need for the future they deserve? What reassurances can she provide to me that that will take place?