Holidays in School Term Time 

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Edward. I thank those Members who have made contributions, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) for bringing this debate before us on behalf of the petitioners. I thank the 250,000 members of the public who made their voices heard by signing the petition so that it could be heard in Parliament.

The UK is facing an absence crisis in schools, it is fair to say. While the pandemic gave rise to a huge spike in pupil absence, since the restrictions were fully lifted in 2022, absence rates have yet to drop back down to pre-pandemic levels. In fact, the general absence rate in the 2022-23 academic year was still over one and a half times higher than the rates recorded during the six years before the pandemic. Persistent absence—missing 10% or more of lessons over a year—does a huge amount of damage to children’s education and prospects, both academically and socially. To emphasise the point, 19.2% of children in England were persistently absent by that definition during the last academic year.

The Liberal Democrats have welcomed the Government’s mission to lower school absence rates. The announcement of free breakfast clubs in all primary schools in England, in a programme due to roll out next year, is a very good way to start addressing the persistent absence problem.

However, the Liberal Democrats also believe that the use of increasingly punitive measures to tackle pupil absence more widely is wrong. Parents and other primary carers of children are responsible not just for their academic attainment but for their overall wellbeing and learning. Inflexible fines, which have also recently increased, are not the one-size-fits-all answer that they are often made out to be. Of course, fines work as a deterrent in many cases, but we have to encourage—demand, even—that schools first work with parents to understand the root causes of absences, which involves addressing the needs of absent children, and then work to find the solutions to get them back in school. Simply slapping parents with financial punishment for issues that are often completely out of their control is not the answer.

The petition concerns the specific issue of absence due to holidays. I am sure that no hon. Member here would doubt the importance of family holidays for children. Whether abroad or in the UK, the chance for a child to have a break from their usual routine, perhaps while visiting and socialising with relatives or seeing historical sites, is important. The hon. Member for Lichfield has fond memories of childhood holidays in Wales; perhaps he is a budding Dylan Thomas. Such experiences of other cultures are invaluable for personal growth.

For many families, organising holidays during the 175 days a year that their children are not expected to be in school is absolutely not a problem. Many parents can afford to pay the frankly enormously hiked holiday package prices during periods of high demand, and being packed into tourist attractions at the busiest times of year is just accepted as a fact of life. However, as other Members have already pointed out today, for some families those factors, particularly the financial ones, are completely prohibitive. For a child who is unable to go on holiday outside term time, the lesson in which they are tasked with writing an account of how they spent their summer may well be one they completely dread. Feeling excluded, singled out or sidelined in daily life is the antithesis of an inclusive education.

Does the Minister agree that the burden should not be on parents to shell out thousands of pounds on the additional costs of a holiday or risk facing inflexible fines, and that instead airlines and travel operators should stop taking advantage of such families? Nearly doubling the price of the same holiday package from one day to the next is simply exploitative and completely out of line with any surge in demand. We have talked in other contexts about surge pricing this year; it is exploitative.

The school holidays issue is indicative of a wider issue, which is that school absence is generally—indeed, inherently—linked to a family’s financial situation. In the 2022-23 school year, 36.5% of children eligible for free school meals were absent from school, compared with only 15.6% of children who were not eligible. The Government’s very provision of those meals and the new breakfast clubs that I mentioned indicates that they see the correlation between a family’s finances and a child’s attendance. I therefore ask the Minister what the Government will do to relieve holiday-related financial burdens for those who clearly need it most.

Aside from financial concerns, we should also consider that term dates are decided by local authorities and schools, so we could encourage them to organise term dates in such a way that the largest number of families in their communities can benefit from the 175 days a year that can be used for holidays. For example, giving a lengthy Christmas holiday to a community where a large number of families are not Christian can mean that those communities are effectively barred from properly celebrating their own religious festivals, or face fines if they take their children out of school to do so.

Some schools have found a way around that issue by pushing together all their inset and training days, rather than spreading them out over the year, so that families have consecutive days to celebrate those festivals or even to book some time away together outside high-demand times. That indicates part of the answer: a way forward that is about collaboration, rather than simply punishment.

I am trying to highlight that, in many cases, it is not that parents are actively choosing to take their child out of school, but that their child has been forced out of the school system by factors outside their control. I have only scratched the surface of financial burdens, but we should not debate the issue without addressing the point of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) regarding the needs of pupils with SEND, to which group I would also add young carers or those with mental health conditions. Their needs are consistently not being met in the classroom or at home, because of the knock-on effect and pressure.

I will give an example from my constituency. Across Cambridgeshire, the rates of school absence for those with SEN support and those with EHCPs—education, health and care plans—are quietly rising year on year. I suggest that that is a direct consequence of inadequate SEND and EHCP funding, which, in Cambridgeshire’s case, is stuck at levels decided nearly 10 years ago.

That is a multifaceted problem that needs to be tackled constructively, not punitively. The Liberal Democrats have long called for measures, particularly around mental health, such as having a dedicated, qualified mental health professional in every primary and secondary school, and giving local authorities extra funding to reduce the amount that schools have to pay towards the costs of EHCPs.

The bottom line is that we need to understand why a child is not attending school, whether that is because of holidays, the financial reasons that I mentioned, SEND or young caring responsibilities. Understanding that is the most effective step towards beginning to reduce the problem; we have to understand it if we are going to do anything about it. I suggest that the Government adopt the Liberal Democrat proposal of setting up a register of children who are not in school to build that understanding and, therefore, remove the underlying barriers to attendance.

The solution to this petition, and indeed the wider issue of school absence, is not to make children attend school, but to ensure that they are able to do so—not forcing but enabling them. The Government, parents and care givers jointly have a duty to provide children with the education they deserve. Costly punishments are not the solution.

Apprenticeships and T-Levels

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I thank all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate, and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) for introducing it. I am sure we all agree that we owe it to our young people to ensure that they have access to all education and training options, and that those options are of the very highest standard. That is not always the case in the present system, which is having an impact not just on young people and their futures, but, as has been said, on the country’s economic development and prospects.

Apprenticeships, vocational education and skills are all vital if the Government are serious about their growth mission and breaking down barriers to opportunity. I think we all share those ambitions, but the system needs reform across the board, starting right at the beginning by ensuring that all young people are fully aware and informed of all their options—many thousands, as it may be—post 16 and post 18. We need to see an improvement in the quality of careers education, information, advice and guidance in schools to support them making those decisions.

[Clive Jones]

Many residents in my constituency of Wokingham are concerned about the uncertainty around T-level courses and other existing level 3 qualifications. Students in Wokingham have been looking at courses and colleges to apply to, and some colleges are currently unable to confirm existing level 3 courses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the current lack of clarity about the implementation of T-level courses is causing unnecessary stress to parents, students and teachers?

[Ian Sollom]

I absolutely agree, and I will come back to that point later.

The services that inform and offer guidance need to be informed themselves about the local and national job market, which industries and sectors are growing, and which skills are in demand in order to support students into top-quality jobs. We know that there are skills shortages, and giving higher-quality, useful information will be essential to plugging that skills gap.

On apprenticeships, the Lib Dems recognise that we not only need more apprenticeships, but that they need to be more attractive to young people. Guaranteeing that an apprenticeship pays at least the national minimum wage would be a good place to start. The Chancellor announced a welcome increase in the apprenticeship wage in the Budget last month, but even after those changes, that amount is still only just over 60% of the national living wage. That is quite a disincentive for young people to take up an apprenticeship.

We have also heard today that the apprenticeship levy is not working as well as it should, and that employers often cannot get the funding they need to train staff. In 2023-24, the levy raised £3.9 billion for the Treasury, but the apprenticeship budget, which is separate, awarded only £2.7 billion. Although £500 million goes to the devolved nations under the Barnett formula, as it should, that still leaves a shortfall of £700 million, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). That money has been paid in through the levy, and therefore to the Treasury, but does not reach employers; as was said, it is raised for skills but not spent on skills. That is at a time when the Government say they are keen to encourage businesses to invest in skills. We need that to be directed to skills.

Furthermore, the system was designed so that levy payers do not spend all their levy funds and so that small businesses can access the levy to fund apprenticeships. That said, 98% of the apprenticeship budget was spent each year for the past three years, and if large employers spend all their levy funds, there would be no apprenticeship funding remaining for small businesses. We know that small businesses are crucial to the apprentice system. Non-levy-paying employers recruit more apprentices each year than levy-paying businesses: last year, that was 42,000 apprentices under 19 compared with 35,000 by larger recruiters—a difference of 7,000. We are waiting for more details on the Government’s new growth and skills levy, but if they are serious about pivoting the apprenticeship system towards young people, they need to sort out apprenticeship funding.

On T-levels, the Liberal Democrats welcome the ambition to achieve equal value between academic and vocational routes—that has been a common theme across many parties for a considerable time—but we do not agree with the previous Government’s decision simply to scrap dozens of BTEC courses. Those qualifications are a middle pathway that allows many students, including those who find the T-level entry requirements simply too high, to benefit from a combination of academic and applied qualifications. Research indicates that BTECs significantly improve university entry rates for both white working-class and black students.

Many parts of industry are concerned about T-levels. For example, the hospitality sector prides itself on having no barriers to entry to those with no industry experience, and opens its doors to people with low educational attainment. That encourages a more diverse, inclusive and accessible workforce. However, the hospitality T-level requires 16 to 18-year-olds to have 5 GCSEs of grade 5 and above. That excludes a whole host of young people with many non-academic skills and talents, who could make successful careers in hospitality. It is important that we keep BTEC routes for those people.

As other Members have mentioned, there have been problems with the roll-out of T-levels, and concerns have been expressed by education providers and employers about their ability to deliver industry placements. A report by the Education Policy Institute this year highlighted issues with student retention, with nearly a third of first-year health and science T-level students dropping out of their programme. Until the new T-levels are well established, understood by students and employers, and proven to be successful, rolling back BTECs, which are successful, would be a huge mistake. The Government’s decision earlier in the year to review the defunding of BTECs was welcome. Now, however, as my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) pointed out, the delay in the outcome of that review is affecting planning for the next academic year and the opportunities available to young people. So, I urge the Government to get on and publish the outcome of that review.

Finally, with a lot of issues around skills at the moment, it seems that the answer is “Skills England”. I will echo the words of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire in his opening remarks that the King’s Speech referred to a Skills England Bill, whereas the Bill that is in the other place does not refer to Skills England at all. We would welcome the opportunity to discuss Skills England when we consider the actual legislation.

Government’s Childcare Expansion

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has two minutes.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I am suffering because of the length of time that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) took earlier. I will try to stick to two minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Minister for sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats believe that flexible, affordable childcare and early years education is a critical part of our society. High-quality early years education is the best possible investment in the future and contributes to economic performance in the present as well. Most importantly, it is the most effective way to narrow the gap between rich and poor children.

Broadly, we welcome the Government’s promise to expand access to affordable childcare and early years education. Under the previous Government, we saw what happens when big promises on childcare are not backed up by the funding and resources needed to deliver them. The Conservative Government’s plans risked exacerbating the problems that parents already faced: a lack of childminder places and eye-watering fees.

The number of childminders in England fell by an estimated 26% between 2018 and 2023. Last year, a report found that 35% of nursery managers would limit the number of places they offered unless the Government helped with recruitment. I note from the Minister’s statement that the Government are taking steps to improve recruitment and retention in the childcare and early years sector, but does the Minister agree that a career strategy is also needed for those working in early years, including a training programme, so that all those working with young children are properly trained and supported? Will he give assurances that the places announced today will be properly supported by committing to a full review of the rates paid to providers for free hours, to ensure they cover the actual costs of delivering that high-quality childcare?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Member for his statement and welcome him to his place. As he identified, there are some core challenges for the early years sector in delivering the Government’s agenda to expand childcare entitlement. As I made clear in my statement, today’s announcement sets out key steps we are looking to take to deliver for children and ensure that they have safe, supported systems to help them succeed in life. I know that he will support our ambition of ensuring that every child, no matter where they come from, can succeed in life.

The hon. Member was right to focus on disadvantage, which is a key priority for me as a Minister. If we are serious about breaking down barriers to opportunity, we need to think about the impact of the scheme on the most disadvantaged in our society. The number of childminders involved in the system has halved over the years; we want to reset that relationship. The new flexibilities announced today will make a big difference. Finally, he will appreciate that funding is a matter for the spending review.

Universities: Freedom of Speech

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Freedom of speech is fundamentally about the freedom to inquire about and explore ideas, facts and data that are sometimes difficult and sometimes inconvenient, and it was the lack of facts and data, and even of much of an idea, that failed to convince the Liberal Democrats of the need for the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act. It was not based on evidence and it was not proportionate, and the Government’s decision to halt its implementation is welcome. However, we should take legitimate concerns seriously, and we should not ignore those that exist within Jewish communities, including in universities. What work is the Minister undertaking to ensure that Jewish staff and students feel safe and welcome in our communities, especially in our universities?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s comments and recognise much within them. The rise in antisemitic abuse on higher education campuses is deeply concerning, and this Government take it extremely seriously. We regularly meet Universities UK to discuss what support universities are offering to Jewish students on campus and how they are tackling antisemitic abuse. We also regularly meet the Union of Jewish Students, the University Jewish Chaplaincy and the Community Security Trust, and we will continue to do so to make sure that we get this right.