Student Loans

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Wednesday 18th March 2026 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to the Opposition for this debate. In the recent Westminster Hall debate on this topic, we heard powerful testimony about the reality that graduates face in making repayments every month and watching their balance grow, with their plans deferred and lives constrained. I am sure we will hear more of that today, and those stories deserve to be heard and to receive a clear response, not a political runaround.

Parts of the motion are not wrong. The plan 2 threshold should be unfrozen, and while we may disagree on the specific change proposed, the interest structure does need reform, as the Liberal Democrats have said clearly. The motion also calls for more apprenticeships for 18 to 21-year-olds, and we welcome such investment in principle. We would go further by doubling degree apprenticeships in priority sectors and introducing skills co-operatives specifically to help small businesses to pool resources to take on apprentices they could not otherwise afford.

However, the question is whether the motion as a whole represents a serious plan, and I am afraid that it does not. Specifically, it calls for

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

Let us be clear about what

“controlling the number of places”

means. It means cutting. The courses they have in mind are arts, humanities and creative subjects.

The argument rests on a definition that sounds objective but is not: which courses have benefits that are significantly outweighed by their costs? The proxy appears effectively to be graduate salaries. Graduate salaries are a poor measure of what society gains from a degree. Nursing, teaching, social work and creative arts all underperform on salary data while delivering enormous public value, so what logic are the Conservatives applying? Even on salary terms, cutting arts places would damage science, technology, engineering and maths, not protect it, as one Labour Member mentioned. Arts courses are relatively cheap to deliver and cross-subsidise expensive laboratory provision. The Institute for Fiscal Studies explicitly found that reducing arts funding may, perversely, reduce funding for STEM.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very important point. The Conservatives talk about cutting public funding for courses such as creative arts, but that will not stop the wealthiest students from accessing those courses. Does he agree with me that all that will happen is that people from more deprived parts of our country will not be able to access them, and that there will be one rule for them and another rule for everyone else?

[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.

[Dr Ben Spencer]

On the broader point of principle about the value of certain subjects, I intervened on the Minister and she failed to answer, so I will ask the hon. Gentleman the same question. Does he think that there are some subjects offered by some universities for which the value is quite poor and that it is unfair for the taxpayer to subsidise them? Does he think that in principle it is possible that those subjects exist?

[Ian Sollom]

The point is to allow the market and the regulation of that market to decide. [Interruption.] I will make some progress.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. To be helpful, the hon. Member might reflect on the fact that the microphone is in front of him; it makes it much harder for Hansard and for the viewing public to pick up his words if he faces the back of the Chamber.

[Ian Sollom]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will turn to the threshold and the interest rate—areas on which we do substantially agree with the Conservative motion’s diagnosis, if not its proposed remedy. In the system as it stands, the interest rate matters financially only for those who repay in full, which most graduates do not. That is by design to share the costs between the graduate and the state. It means that the largest benefit of the Conservatives’ proposal would flow to the highest earners—those who repay completely. As analysis from the Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown, it would be regressive in its distribution, which is why more thought is required on interest structure.

On the threshold, the picture is more straightforward. Before the election, the Education Secretary promised that graduates would pay less under Labour, as the shadow Minister said, and, in their first Budget, the Government left the threshold rising. Then, in their second Budget, the Government froze the threshold for three years from 2027.

Ministers have cited a £5.9 billion figure as the yield of this change, but we should be clear about what that figure is: it is the discounted present value of extra repayments across nearly 30 years, with the bulk sitting in the 2030s, 2040s and 2050s. The annual cash impact during this Parliament is relatively small, and the change barely moves the needle on the Chancellor’s own fiscal rules. Graduates will bear a real and immediate burden in their payslip for the remainder of their loan for a cash-flow improvement that is modest in this Parliament and does nothing at all for the Chancellor’s balanced Budget rule. Of all the choices in November’s Budget, why did they make this one?

I note that the Government’s amendment today welcomes a commitment to making the system fairer, and such commitments should be welcomed. However, graduates are waiting for action. Let me therefore set out what the Liberal Democrats would do. First, we would unfreeze the plan 2 threshold immediately and tie it to earnings, as was originally promised. Secondly, we would restore meaningful maintenance grants. Students from the poorest families can borrow £1,284 less today in real terms than in 2020-21. The £1,000 grant reaches about 10% of students, restricted to specific subjects. I think we can do better on maintenance policy: grants must be available regardless of subject, and the parental income thresholds that have been frozen since 2008 must be urgently uprated.

Thirdly, we would establish a royal commission on graduate finance, including plans 2, 3 and 5—plans 3 and 5 have terms that are, in several respects, even harsher. All those plans should be in scope. It should also have independent oversight of key parameters. That is not to delay, but to look seriously at fairer interest structures, total repayment caps and progressive repayment rates, and, critically, to build the cross-party settlement that is the only real protection against the next Government squeezing graduates again.

The system has been treated as a fiscal convenience rather than a social contract by the previous Government, and now by this one. Graduates deserve better.

Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2026

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Tuesday 10th March 2026 General Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Sir John.

I will speak briefly. The Liberal Democrats will not be supporting this draft instrument. We understand why the Government brought it forward: universities are under severe financial pressure and the sector needs sustainable funding. We absolutely accept that problem, but that does not mean that we accept the solution. Our position continues to be that any changes to fee limits must be part of a wider package of reform.

Students deserve to know not just what they will pay but whether repayment terms will be fair, whether the system as a whole will treat them honestly and that the terms will not be changed against them when it is convenient. At the moment, young people can see that those questions do not have satisfactory answers, and that is why we have called for a royal commission on graduate finance to address them properly.

Reform of student finance is only half the picture. We are also clear that fee increases should, in return, come with clear expectations on universities about demonstrable financial sustainability, transparent reporting of how money is spent and accountability on student outcomes. None of that conditionality is on offer here. Asking students to pay more while the underlying system remains unreformed, without clear accountability for how the money is used, is not something we can support.

[The Chair]

Minister, I assume that the correction slip that you drew the Committee’s attention to is going to be produced and delivered today.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister]

I am pleased to hear that that is where the hon. Lady was at that time. The Conservative Government and the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition froze thresholds 10 times.

[Ian Sollom]

The Minister has made that point in several debates. I would just like to explain that the commitment was to raise thresholds from when the first cohort graduated, which was in 2016. That was indeed why Martin Lewis investigated the issue and considered judicial review in 2016. There was no freezing of thresholds prior to that. They were due to rise from 2016. I am sure the Minister did not mean to misinform us.

[Josh MacAlister]

Certainly not. In fact, the current student loan system—I believe it is plan 5—which is due to come online with the first graduates this year, has been increased in line with inflation by this Government. The point stands that the choice of the Government back then was to maintain the threshold where it was and effectively freeze it, capturing many more people into the system. The cumulative effect of 10 threshold freezes in a decade where inflation was ticking up is being felt by students now.

It is somewhat galling to hear that the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are outraged that this Government, who were able to find the money to lift the threshold in our first year in office, are now balancing difficult decisions so that we can make sure that we have the funding needed for further education, since over half of students do not go to university and need a well-resourced skills system. Both parties seem now to be walking away from their responsibility to make a system that they designed work effectively, which is unfortunate.

The Committee will know how crucial this sector is for our economic growth—I am sure this is felt across the House. Members will recognise its importance in contributing to research and innovation and the impact that it has on local communities and the lives of students. Challenges in higher education have been left unaddressed for far too long, and providers have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income.

The Government have not shied away from the decisions that are needed. We took action to raise the fee cap in 2025-26, and we have committed to bringing back maintenance grants and future-proofing maintenance loans for students, but we need to go further so that that our higher education sector can continue to deliver the world-class education and research that this country and future generations deserve.

Independent Faith Schools: VAT

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Thursday 26th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for bringing forward this debate.

It is well established that the Liberal Democrats oppose taxing education, whether that is independent, faith or non-faith schools. We did not support the Government’s decision to end the VAT exemption for independent schools, nor them treating such schools differently from other independent education providers for VAT purposes. Neither did we support the Government’s policy to remove private schools’ charitable business rates relief of 80%, for those that are charities.

Our position applies equally to all independent schools, but I acknowledge that for many parents, choosing a faith school is not primarily a financial calculation; it is an expression of deeply held conviction about how their children should be raised, and about community and belief. The Government should be mindful of how the policy bears on those for whom a faith education is not a luxury but a matter of conscience. It must be the choice of parents to decide where their children are educated. We understand that the choices parents make have many reasons, and it is parents’ right to make such choices without being subject to further taxes.

I have heard from several of my constituents on this issue, none of them wealthy but all of them working hard and wanting to do the very best for their children. Some, alongside many others across the country, have struggled to find a local state secondary school place for their child and have been offered one many miles away. That has meant that they have had to resort to private school, while they sit on long waiting lists for places that will never become available, leaving them under considerable financial pressures.

Many other parents have been failed by the school their children attended, which has not provided the support that they need. They have been forced to move to the private sector, again at considerable cost. That has not been a choice, but something they feel has been forced on them, because of issues with the school system. Any parent making that choice, however, for whatever reason, should certainly not be penalised with more taxes.

It must be noted that parents of children with special educational needs and disabilities often turn to independent schools, because support is not available in local state schools. Independent schools educate more than 100,000 children with SEND. That number tells its own story.

In the past year alone, 100 independent schools are reported to have closed their doors and a further 26 are predicted to follow this year. A small number of those were part of the natural churn, but the majority were not. They include primary and secondary schools, sixth-form colleges and special educational needs schools. The Liberal Democrats remain concerned that such ongoing closures will have a knock-on effect in some areas of the country, which will see an increase in pupils applying and entering the state school system. In Kent, for example, nearly 100 state school inquiries were made in just 48 hours, after the independent Bishop Challoner school announced its closure. The state school system is already struggling with large class sizes, declining teacher numbers and increasing numbers of pupils with SEND. The Government cannot expect the state sector to absorb the pressures that these increased numbers will bring.

The Liberal Democrats, however, do believe that independent schools benefiting from VAT exemptions should give back to their local communities. Indeed, many already do, through shared facilities, joint programmes and genuine partnerships with neighbouring state schools. We want to see that best practice become universal, with investment proportional to school size and fees, and schools expected to demonstrate their contribution through the inspection process. Faith schools in particular often have a strong tradition of community service that goes well beyond the school gates. We should recognise that and see it built upon.

The Government must look seriously at the negative impact of VAT on faith and non-faith independent schools, the impact on the state sector, and the very real financial burden on families who have already paid tax into the system. I look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to address the concerns expressed today.

Student Loan Repayment Plans

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair today, Ms Lewell, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) on securing this debate.

As we have heard, there are many graduates in this country who make loan payments every month and yet they see their loan balances grow. They are young professionals whose loan statements bear no resemblance to the deal they thought they were signing up to. At the same time, there are students who cannot afford to eat and university finances are precarious across the sector. The systems feel broken, so this debate really matters, and those listening deserve a clear diagnosis of what has gone wrong and a credible path forward. Let me try to give both.

When the plan 2 system was designed, graduates were promised something specific: that they would repay only when earning above a certain threshold, that the threshold would rise with earnings, and that whatever remained after 30 years would be written off—a mechanism to share the cost of higher education between the individual and the state. A higher interest rate for higher earners was a deliberate feature—a progressive measure. Those graduates earning the most would contribute more, to make the system sustainable for those who could not. For many graduates at the time, that deal, however imperfect, felt manageable.

However, there is a problem: successive Governments have treated those promises as suggestions. In 2016, the threshold was frozen when it was supposed to rise, not because the economy required that, but because it was a convenient way to extract more from graduates without the political difficulty of imposing a tax rise. The threshold jumped significantly in 2022, but it was then frozen again, then raised again. Now the Government have given in to the same temptation, budgeting to freeze it for three more years. What graduates have experienced is not a coherent system operating as originally designed, but a set of rules that keep getting rewritten by whoever needs to balance the books that year. That is a core injustice.

To that political failure, though, we must add an economic failure. In the early years of this decade, inflation ran at levels that few foresaw when the system was designed in 2012. RPI, the basis for the interest rate, exceeded 13%. There was a cap on interest rates during that period, which in principle was welcome, but it was implemented too late, and the cap was set too high to make a meaningful difference for most borrowers. Meanwhile, graduates’ starting salaries barely moved in real terms. Interest-linked to a discredited inflation measure running hot, while earnings stood still—that combination has been toxic and the system had no mechanism to correct it.

Although plan 2 graduates suffered from the accumulation of damage caused by those political and economic circumstances, the last Government introduced plan 5. Plan 5 graduates face a lower repayment threshold and a 40-year repayment period before write-off—terms that in many respects are harder than those faced by their predecessors. I hope we do not lose sight of the plan 2 or plan 5 cohort in this debate, because any serious reform of the system must address both.

Before I move on to what can be done about loan repayments, I want to say something briefly about students who are struggling right now. The abolition of maintenance grants after the coalition ended in 2015 loaded the highest debt on to the students least able to bear it. Those from the poorest backgrounds now graduate with significantly more debt, not from their fees but from the additional maintenance borrowing. The level of support has fallen 10% in real terms from its peak. Students skip meals, work hours that damage their studies, and are unable to participate fully in the education that they are notionally receiving. The Government have reintroduced £1,000 grants for maintenance for certain subjects, but the full reintroduction of meaningful maintenance grants for the most disadvantaged students must be a priority.

The most urgent action on repayments requires no review, but a decision: reverse the threshold freeze over the next three years and tie it to earnings, as graduates were originally promised. I hope the Minister can give graduates that commitment today.

For the structural reform that the system genuinely needs, we need to go beyond any single parameter. We need to design interest and repayment structures that are genuinely progressive across the income distribution, including by ditching the discredited link to RPI. We must build a system that also works for people studying flexibly and later in life, not just for 18-year-olds on three or four-year degrees. We are seeing more move to modular courses, so the system needs to be able to cater for that.

Structural reform is needed, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for a cross-party royal commission on graduate finance reform. I anticipate that some will see that as a delay, but I do not think it is. We need action on the threshold action now, but the commission needs to address a different, harder question: how do we build a system that future Governments cannot quietly dismantle the moment that fiscal pressure mounts? Every change made retrospectively to the terms has broken a promise to people who made life decisions based on them. Cross-party consensus with independent oversight of key parameters is the only protection against that happening again.

I would like to directly address the suggestion made explicitly by the official Opposition that the answer to fiscal pressure in the student finance system is to have drastically fewer students, and to cut courses, close departments and focus support on degrees whose graduates earn enough to repay quickly. That gets the diagnosis backwards. The graduate earnings premium has declined in Britian, not because we have too many graduates but because we have too few skilled jobs. Many of our peers in the OECD have expanded graduate numbers while maintaining or even raising the earnings premium. We should be asking why those countries have generated skilled professional jobs in a way that Britain has failed to do.

Cutting student numbers accepts that failure as permanent, but that is a counsel of despair. It also fails on its own terms. Setting aside the inherent value of the creative arts—many have made that point—that sector contributes enormously to the economy and enriches all our lives. Arts and humanities courses are also cheaper to deliver, and help to support expensive, lab-based science, technology, engineering and mathematics provision. Cutting 100,000 arts places would not simply reduce the loan book; it would undermine the financial model of the very STEM courses that the Conservatives claim to prioritise.

[Mr Charters]

Before the hon. Gentleman concludes, does he agree that the architects of plan 2 need to say one simple word—sorry?

[Ian Sollom]

I am not personally an architect of plan 2, but the former leader of my party did say sorry, and my party was appropriately punished at the 2015 general election.

The decline in the graduate earnings premium is, at its root, a story about economic underperformance, and that points towards the solution. Universities are not simply places that people go to acquire qualifications; they are also research engines, regional anchors, training grounds for public services and drivers of the innovation that creates the skilled employment that graduates need. The answer to graduates being squeezed is not fewer graduates; it is more skilled jobs generated by the research, commercialisation and civic investment that universities are well positioned to deliver. We face a choice: managed decline, fewer students, fewer courses, talent lost and regions left behind; or transformation—treating universities like the national assets that they are. Graduates and the country deserve better. I hope that the Minister can signal in his response that the Government are making a start on that.

Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I thank the hon. Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for securing this important debate.

I acknowledge the families who have suffered the devastating loss of their loved one at such a young age. In particular, I recognise Natasha Abrahart’s parents for their campaigning to prevent other families from enduring what they experienced. I am grateful for the time that they spent with me to share Natasha’s story and their concerns about how universities support students in crisis. It is because of families like theirs that we are having this debate today, and we owe it to them to get it right.

Although much of this debate has rightly focused on mental health support, universities have a broader duty of care to their students. It encompasses physical safety, appropriate academic adjustments, protection from harassment and ensuring that institutional practices do not place unreasonable pressure on vulnerable students. The Liberal Democrats believe that universities should be held accountable for the support that they provide to their students as part of those duties.

We have heard a lot of numbers and statistics about students’ mental health challenges. In the interests of time, I will not dig into those further. From the many meetings that I have had with universities and student organisations, it is clear that many care deeply about those studying with them and want to provide the best support to all who need it, but we also know that demand is rising and not all institutions are meeting what we might expect.

The question is how we ensure that support services are available, timely and fit for purpose, and that students know how to access them. Also, how do we ensure that institutional practices, from assessment methods to accommodation standards, properly support student wellbeing? Support can come in a number of forms, catering to different student populations and localities, among other things, but I hope we would all agree that there should be a consistent approach across all universities to ensure that support is available when and where it is needed.

That is where the university mental health charter, devised by the charity Student Minds, could have an important role to play. Signing up to the charter is currently voluntary for universities, and just over 100 of the 165 have signed up. All universities are being asked to sign up by the end of this year. That should be encouraged, to ensure a base level of support for all students from the start of their higher education experience.

To address universities’ duty-of-care responsibilities, a voluntary aspiration must evolve into a rigorous accountability mechanism. That means not just mental health services, but ensuring that institutional policies and practices properly support student wellbeing. Universities must not only sign up to the charter, but demonstrate that they are adhering to a full strategy, with clear standards, regular independent assessment and consequences for non-compliance; providing details and evidence of direct signposting of services to students; dedicated individuals responsible for ensuring that well-structured welfare checks are carried out; and timely delivery of services when needed.

I was going to give a couple of examples from the University of the West of England, as I have been really impressed by its leadership on the issue. It does not have a one-size-fits-all solution, which is food for thought for other institutions and the Minister. However, in the interests of time I will just encourage the Minister to look into that. Importantly, the university’s approach is not just about counselling; it is about co-ordinating work across the institution to ensure that students with mental health conditions receive appropriate academic adjustments where necessary, that assessment practices are flexible when needed, and that support wraps around the whole student experience.

As others have said today, it is important to recognise that universities cannot solve this problem alone. We need much stronger partnerships between universities and NHS mental health services. Students should not fall into gaps between university counselling and clinical NHS provision when they most need support. When students move away to university, they often lose the continuity in NHS services that may have supported them at home. The student mental health agreement, which facilitates the sharing of information, with consent, between universities and NHS services, must be implemented consistently across all institutions.

Finally, the area that is perhaps hardest to address is the cultural change required among students, families and staff across universities. It is vital that students who are suffering feel comfortable and safe to disclose any issues they may have in order to seek and access the support and services they need. We can only do so by continuing to talk.

We owe it to the families of those young people who are no longer with us to ensure that we adopt a system-wide approach to providing the best access to support and services at universities, as well as bringing about much-needed cultural change to prevent further tragedies in the future.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

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

We found out last week that the international student levy will raise £445 million from our universities, but only 1% of that will go to the maintenance grants that Ministers have claimed to justify this damaging tax on our universities. Worse still, the flat fee design hits hardest the universities doing the most to serve students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Can the Secretary of State tell us whether more or fewer disadvantaged students will access university as a result of this policy?

[Bridget Phillipson]

We are investing the international student levy into support around skills and access to high-quality further and higher education colleges targeted at students who most need that support in subjects most closely aligned to our industrial strategy and Government priorities. That will make a huge difference to young people from not very well-off backgrounds, allowing them to access university. We are backing our universities with the measures that we have set out on tuition fee increases, which will give our institutions stability.

International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Wednesday 29th October 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for securing this debate about a decision that demonstrates at the very least a profoundly flawed approach to policymaking and at worst a wilful dismantling of excellence in state education.

Let me begin by examining the Government’s stated rationale for this decision. The ministerial response last week said that the Government would

“focus large programme uplift funding…on those large programmes which include mathematics, further mathematics and other high value A levels.”

The stated aim is to prioritise STEM education and to support the pipeline of students for priority sectors in the industrial strategy.

Let me ask the Minister some questions directly. What evidence does the Department have that this targeted approach will achieve better STEM outcomes than maintaining IB funding? What analysis has been conducted comparing the STEM university destinations and career pathways of IB students with those of A-level students? What data supports the assumption that cutting IB funding while maintaining it for multiple STEM A-levels will improve our STEM pipeline? Can he produce that evidence today?

Every IB diploma student studies mathematics and a science to the age of 18. They develop research skills through writing a 4,000-word extended essay, critical thinking through studying theory of knowledge and real-world problem-solving through community service. Those are exactly the skills that universities and employers tell us that STEM graduates need.

The profound irony is that this Government tell us that they want to prioritise science, technology, engineering and mathematics. However, in making this decision about STEM education, the Department appears to have conducted no impact assessment, carried out no consultation with schools or families, and given no consideration to any unintended consequences.

As has been mentioned, the letter that 20 state schools received on 1 October—right in the middle of sixth-form open day season, with prospectuses already printed and families already making choices—gave them no warning. If this is how the Government approach policymaking about scientific education—making decisions without evidence, consultation or even a basic assessment of consequences—one questions what kind of example they think they are setting for young people about the value of scientific thinking.

I can declare an interest: I took not just two but three mathematics A-levels. I wanted to specialise early, and I am a strong supporter of university maths schools, such as Cambridge Maths school, which serves my constituency. I note that several university maths schools have been left in limbo for many months, unable to open or expand their offer during the Government’s pause of the free school programme. That is not exactly an example of joined-up thinking from the Department.

My point is about choice. A good education system offers pathways to those who want to specialise early and to those who want to maintain breadth. Tony Blair—I am sure the Minister remembers “education, education, education”—understood this. His Labour Government promised an IB school in every local authority. This Labour Government are going in precisely the opposite direction.

There is an even more troubling dimension to this choice—one that I sincerely hope will trouble the Minister as well as the Secretary of State. On 15 October, less than two weeks ago, I stood in almost exactly this spot during the Ada Lovelace day debate and highlighted how early specialisation at age 16 disproportionately impacts girls’ participation in STEM. Research shows that students are more likely to take maths A-level if their maths grade is higher than their other grades at GCSE. Girls generally achieve higher GCSE grades than boys across the board, so they often choose other subjects at A-level. That reflects the wider pool of opportunities available to them as generally higher achievers.

The international baccalaureate solves this problem. Research from the Engineering Professors Council showed that IB graduates are disproportionately women and twice as likely to pursue further STEM study after their first degree. The research explicitly states that actively recruiting IB candidates would be a pathway to getting more women into male-dominated engineering fields.

Here is another direct question for the Minister: how can the Government claim to want more students—particularly more girls—on STEM pathways while cutting funding for a qualification that demonstrably helps to achieve exactly that? The Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for Houghton and Sunderland South (Bridget Phillipson), also holds the Women and Equalities brief, so can the Minister say whether she is comfortable with a policy that reduces women’s participation in STEM? Women make up just 15.7% of the engineering and technology workforce. Jobs in those sectors are expected to grow faster than other occupations through to 2030, and the Government’s response is to defund the programme that helps to keep girls in STEM.

This is close to home for me: Impington Village college, which has been mentioned already, is in my constituency. It was named the UK’s top comprehensive school for 2025. It credits its IB programme as the key to success. I have met students who have told me that the IB gives them breadth, critical thinking and confidence to succeed throughout their whole lives. However, losing £2,400 per student will force impossible choices about staffing and subject range. The Government are forcing the UK’s top comprehensive to compromise the very quality that earned it that recognition.

This is already happening: Tonbridge grammar school, the Sunday Times IB school of the year, announced this week that it will stop offering the IB because it cannot afford to continue. The Secretary of State told the Confederation of School Trusts conference that she wants to “spread excellence” from one school to another—

“the best of the best.”

Impington Village college is the best; Tonbridge grammar is the best. The Government are defunding them. Is that what the Secretary of State meant by spreading success?

Let us examine the value for money argument. This decision will save £2.5 million per year from a Department budget that has been mentioned as exceeding £100 billion. It is invisible in the accounts. For this microscopic saving, we are creating a two-tier system, where a brilliant, internationally recognised qualification becomes exclusive to those who can afford private school fees. Currently, 76 independent schools offer the IB, compared with just 20 state schools, and more state schools need to be able to offer it. This decision does not narrow the gap; it devastates the provision. Indeed, Sir Anthony Seldon wrote in The Times just the other day that this is

“the most regressive elective action towards state schools taken by government in the last 25 years.”

I have three asks of the Government. First, reverse the decision and reinstate the large programme uplift funding for the international baccalaureate diploma programme. The saving is negligible; the damage is profound. Secondly, protect current IB students and those enrolling to begin in the next academic year, and do not pull the rug out from under young people who have made or are making choices in good faith now. Thirdly, learn from the IB’s success, rather than destroy it. Examine the evidence, consult with schools, students and families, and consider how we can give more, not fewer, students access to this broad and rigorous education.

I will close by quoting the international baccalaureate’s mission statement:

“The International Baccalaureate aims to develop inquiring, knowledgeable and caring young people who help to create a better and more peaceful world through intercultural understanding and respect…These programmes encourage students across the world to become active, compassionate and lifelong learners who understand that other people, with their differences, can also be right.”

I hope that the Government have listened to that.

[Sir Roger Gale (in the Chair)]

I call the Opposition Front-Bench spokesperson, Saqib Bhatti.

Children with Allergies: School Safeguarding

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this debate and for his forthcoming introduction of the school allergy safety Bill to Parliament. As a parent, I understand the concerns when a child starts their school life. We hope that they settle well, are happy making friends and enjoy learning. The anxiety that comes when our children have an allergy, particularly a severe one, must be enormous. It is one that I cannot truly understand, not having experienced it, but I have been really moved by what I have heard today from Members who have.

There are 680,000 pupils in England with an allergy, so there are also many more anxious parents. The hon. Member said that he would not talk about specific cases, and I will also respect that. Sadly, there have been a number of tragic cases in the last few years, and our thoughts in this debate are surely with those families. It is important to recognise that the coroners’ reports in those cases have cited a lack of in-date adrenalin devices, inadequate training of staff and confusion about the process, with those delays ultimately resulting in deaths. It needs to be a given that parents can feel assured that their children’s school can deal with any allergy incidents, whether minor or life-threatening.

It is estimated that around two children in every classroom have an allergy of some kind. Food allergies, which can be life-threatening, are particularly concerning in young children, between 5% and 8% of whom are affected, compared with 1% or 2% of adults. Studies have shown that the incidence of food allergies nearly doubled between 2008 and 2018, and we can see from an increase of 161% in hospital admissions over the last two decades that the problem is getting worse. There has been some welcome progress on research into prevention, but we have to make sure that young people are safe in schools.

In addition to the effect on physical health, it is also important to look at the other ways in which having an allergy affects children. It can have a huge impact on key areas of their lives, including disrupting their education and limiting their social lives. Again, I refer to the lived experience shared by the hon. Members for Clwyd East (Becky Gittins) and for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) of the psychological stress and anxiety from living with this.

Allergy UK’s research shows that 61% of children with food allergies avoid social situations, such as birthday parties, to reduce risk. When we consider that number, it is really sad to know that there are so many children missing out on playing with friends or making new ones, and just enjoying what ought to be care-free moments outside school life. Occasions such as school trips and cultural celebrations in school can lead to increased levels of stress for children, parents and carers, due to uncertainty over allergen exposure and inconsistent implementation of safety practices.

There then comes the time when children move schools, from primary to secondary, or even head off to further or higher education, which brings further stress because there is not a standardised process for reviewing or updating allergy care plans across those transitions, which can lead to gaps in provision and inconsistent safety protocols. Again, that just increases stress and anxiety all the time.

We know that, in some cases, allergies can lead to severe and life-threatening reactions, so it is essential that schools have the right level of equipment to deal with those emergencies and that staff have received sufficient training. However, as many Members have observed, that is simply not happening in schools. Although there is Department for Education guidance on school food standards and allergy guidance, there is now lots of research showing that it is not enough just to have the guidance; we really need to go further. In collaboration with the Natasha Allergy Research Foundation, the national teachers’ union, the NASUWT, surveyed nearly 2,000 teachers across the UK and revealed really concerning findings. I will go into just a few of those and I hope that Members find them interesting.

Despite 95% of the teachers saying that there were pupils at their school with allergies, only 40% said that their school had an allergy policy; 46% said that they did not know whether there was a policy; and 13% said definitively that their school had no allergy policy. On top of that, when it came to training on administering an adrenalin pen, only 28% of teachers said that they had received training in the current academic year; 20% had received training last year; 34% said that they had received training but not in the last two academic years; and 17.5% said that they had never received any training at all. I found those figures fascinating—just the distribution and the inconsistency across that. There were also questions about broader allergy training, such as on adapting classroom practices to reduce the risk and ensuring that activities are safe but inclusive. The survey found that two thirds of respondents had never received any training on those elements.

Research carried out last year by the Benedict Blythe Foundation found that 70% of schools—as has been mentioned—did not have spare allergy pens, allergy trained staff or a school allergy policy. There is no current requirement for schools to provide those, even for pupils at high risk. School staff look after our children day in and day out, which is a huge responsibility on their shoulders. Expecting them to act in an emergency without the proper equipment or training is just not reasonable.

Finally, I draw attention to Allergy UK’s trial, which embedded specialist allergy nurses and dietitians in primary care settings. It has been mentioned already, but with that earlier support for families and clearer clinical guidance to inform school-based care, we get safer day-to-day management for children with complex allergy needs. The trial saw waiting times reduced dramatically: 95% of patients were managed safely within primary care, and it cut unnecessary referrals to secondary care to just 5%.

The Liberal Democrats believe that these kinds of pilots, which invest in public health and early access to community services, reduce the spend on NHS crisis firefighting and ultimately save money in the long term. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take account of the evidence from the Allergy UK trial and look to roll that pilot out nationally in a bid to bring about positive change in schools and beyond. Surely we owe it to children, parents, carers and staff working in schools to make sure that those schools are safe places for everyone.

Music Education

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Thursday 3rd July 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southgate and Wood Green (Bambos Charalambous) on securing this important debate. I say that as someone who, just a few weeks ago, stood in this hall and led a debate on the contribution of maths to the UK, where I argued that investment in science, technology, engineering and maths education was crucial to the UK’s future.

To some, it may seem a little odd that I am about to make the same argument for the creative arts, which sadly are often pitted against STEM, as though we must choose to side with one versus the other when devising education policy. I would argue that that is a false dichotomy. There is no reason why we cannot afford appropriate time and funding to both areas. In fact, I would suggest that they work hand in hand in many ways. Many fundamental mathematical discoveries came from those who first had musical inclinations. Pythagoras identified the harmonic series through an interest in the sounds that a water-filled urn made when struck. Leibniz once stated:

“Music is the pleasure the human mind experiences from counting without being aware that it is counting.”

[John Slinger]

I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Does he agree that this is the cultural and societal-level challenge that I referred to in my speech, whereby music is seen in some way as a flowery activity for an elite or a tiny minority of the population? Perhaps it is seen as something that men or boys would be less inclined to do—as dancing is—and it is regarded as a particular niche. That is not helpful, because we need to show that music is for absolutely everybody and that it has benefits to offer all, just as we do when we talk about sport.

[Ian Sollom]

I could not agree more. This absolutely goes beyond the practicalities of learning an instrument or understanding music theory. It is about those soft skills that we so regularly talk about in sport, but less so in music for some reason, and that is a cultural challenge.

Beyond that, music can also be hugely pleasurable as an activity that does wonders for mental health and stress relief. Certainly, I most reliably relax when I sit down in front of the piano or pick up the guitar, although I do not think the people I live with relax quite as much. Above all, music brings value to our society, and the UK’s thriving cultural sector is a national treasure. The creative industries are crucial to our economy and are worth £126 billion. Too often, they have been neglected, and they will decline without appropriate attention.

Like any other subject, everyone should have fair access to participation in music education. Unfortunately, as hon. Members have observed today, music education in the UK is currently one of the poorest performing subjects for fair access and inclusion. Although music forms part of the national curriculum from key stages 1 to 3, meaning that all maintained schools must teach music from ages five to 14, a 2022 survey by the Independent Society of Musicians found that there was significant variability in the quality of teaching across the country. Whether a child is lucky enough to attend a school with good musical provision is a complete postcode lottery, and that is stifling the pipeline of future creative professionals, which will impact industries such as film, theatre, music and design. Has the Minister considered giving Ofsted the power to monitor curriculum breadth, ensuring that schools are offering a rich and diverse programme that gives equal weight to academic, creative and practical learning?

In my constituency, Cambourne Village college, in particular, is an example of great music education, where students are entitled to three sessions of music a fortnight, as opposed to only once a fortnight in a carousel with other performing arts subjects, as is often the case in other schools. As such, the school’s GCSE music numbers have remained stable and healthy for many years, but real-terms per-pupil cuts have led to a narrowing of the curriculum that is felt acutely at key stage 5, where subjects attracting small numbers are not financially viable. The Cambourne sixth form has found itself unable to offer either music or music tech A-levels, despite there being more than enough enthusiasm, at least from teachers.

Yearly school budgets also expose the inequalities faced across the country. To repeat some of the statistics cited by the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger), there was an average of £1,865 per year allocated to music departments in maintained schools and around £2,000 in academies and free schools, in 2022. That contrasts with the £10,000 spent in independent schools. For maintained schools, that is sometimes around only £1 per student each year, so the cuts really make a big difference.

Budget cuts have had a disproportionate impact on music and arts departments, leading to fewer resources, less specialised teaching staff and reduced opportunities for students. I have heard from one music teacher who told me of his regret about leaving his state school post for an independent one. He felt that in the state school he was not just a teacher, but a shoulder to cry on, because music sessions were sometimes the only chance for students to talk to someone one on one. However, the pay difference between an independent school and a maintained school was just too much to turn down. It is clear from this that the lack of opportunity is not only shrinking our children’s future options, but having an impact on their wellbeing.

Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to ensure all teachers are paid a fair wage for the work they do and are empowered to deliver high quality education to their pupils. In many previous debates on education, I and many other colleagues have made the point to the Minister that, because inequalities in the arts are not tackled at their root in schools, they continue into universities. The decline in the further study of music can therefore be seen working its way up through the education system, with several high-profile cuts to music degree programmes over the past few years, including the well-regarded department at Oxford Brookes University.

The Sutton Trust has found that music as a university subject has a far larger percentage of privately educated students than any other subject, with more than 50% of music students at Oxford, Cambridge and King’s College London coming from upper-middle-class backgrounds. That is not the case with STEM. Some might question why that matters, but it is a fundamental question of fairness. If children are interested in music or show talent, they should be able to pursue that just like they would in any other subject.

That is part of the reason why the Liberal Democrats believe that art subjects, such as music, fine art and photography, should be included in the English baccalaureate, so that students do not have to choose between that false dichotomy of STEM and creative subjects, particularly music, and do not have to narrow down their options so early in school.

The Britten Sinfonia in Cambridge is the only professional orchestra in the east of England. It has historically done some excellent outreach work at schools in the area, including at Impington Village college in my constituency, leading workshops and mentoring to improve the standard of the school’s orchestra and, in doing so, widen access. In 2023, it had its Arts Council England funding completely cut. It was not a small cut; it was totally removed. It was left high and dry with a shortfall of £1 million over three years.

Cutting the budget of Arts Council England is just one example of the way that the previous Government neglected the social, economic and mental health benefits that the arts can bring. I strongly urge the current Government to do better with the funding.

When Pink Floyd claimed, “We don’t need no education,” they wrote a great song but were very wrong. Some suggest that they actually wrote the song about what is now Hills Road sixth form college, which serves my constituency; it is a brilliant institution with a clear track record of producing excellent musicians. Pink Floyd were wrong, because we do need education—perhaps not the restrictive, authoritarian education that they were railing against, but fair and inclusive education, of which music is absolutely part.

Department for Education

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Tuesday 24th June 2025 Commons Chamber

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

The Government have set themselves an ambitious and welcome growth mission, with targets including an 80% employment rate and support for 65,000 additional learners a year by 2028-29. However, some of the decisions made of late somewhat undermine those objectives. Along with Liberal Democrat colleagues, I recently wrote to the Government expressing grave concern about the cuts in the adult skills fund, and the impact that they will have on the Government’s economic growth plans. In her response, the Minister for Skills assured us that adult education was very much a priority.

The Government’s recent announcements about skills funding in the spending review are most welcome, but there is a troubling contradiction in committing to supporting 65,000 additional learners a year while simultaneously cutting the adult skills fund. The Government have invested £625 million to train 60,000 skilled construction workers, recognising that targeted skills investment drives economic growth; that logic should surely apply across all sectors facing skills shortages.

We have no clarity on any improvements in post-18 adult education funding. Mark Robertson, the principal of Cambridge Regional College, which serves my constituency, has said that the cuts in the adult skills fund will mean a £1 million drop in funding for his college, which is unable to meet demand for programmes including healthcare courses, employability training and adult English and maths skills courses because of the lack of available funding. He has warned that the position will be considerably worsened for 2025-26, because the college’s adult skills funding will fall by about 20%. He has said:

“It seems a little counterproductive that, given the drive to reduce immigration to the UK of social care workers by 2028 and the need to train and retrain people employed in areas such as digital skills and retrofit techniques, these priorities are not aligned with a fully joined up policy regarding adult skills funding to enable the need for trained and skilled workers to be met.”

The disconnect between growth ambitions and the funding reality also extends to our universities, which face huge financial pressures and, in some cases, a growing risk of insolvency. Data released recently suggests that up to 72% of higher education providers could be in deficit by 2025-26 without mitigating action. The causes of this situation are well documented, so I will not go into them, but a combination of factors makes it inevitable that more institutions will be forced to make difficult decisions on staffing across all jobs in the sector, and the economic consequences will extend beyond the campus.

As we know, universities are often the largest employers in their area, and the knock-on economic benefits of students living in the area are substantial. On the doorstep of my constituency is Cambridge University, but we also have Anglia Ruskin University, which delivered over 5,000 degree apprenticeships between 2018 and 2023, as many Members will recognise. I urge the Government to look closely at further education and higher education funding, and to lay out their plans in more detail.

[Several hon. Members rose—]