Student Loan Repayment Plans

Luke Charters Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jas Athwal]

I agree that we need to reform this system and look at other ways of doing it. That is the ethos of my ask today: for the Minister to go away and really think about this. I do not want to look at the whole process in this debate, but I want to ensure the Minister is aware of the feeling in this room that we must look at the whole system.

Let us remember how we got here, because I have been reminded of a bit of history. The Conservative party trebled tuition fees to £9,000 in 2012, and the Liberal Democrats, having pledged to oppose any increase, walked through the Lobby to make it happen. This system was not inevitable; it was legislated for. Let me be clear: I do believe that those who benefit from education should contribute to its cost, but fairly, and those who earn more should repay more, fairly. That principle of fairness needs to be the golden thread going through the whole system.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I am on plan 2, which is a dog’s dinner of a system. Like me, is my hon. Friend not surprised that the architects of this Frankenstein’s mess are not even here for the debate? Our generation is picking up the cost of their mess.

[Jas Athwal]

I agree with my hon. Friend; we must be clear where the blame lies. It is not fair that a system created by one party and enabled by another is now presided over by my own party, who will clear up the mess. The system burdens millions, such as my hon. Friend, with balances they may never clear. It follows the letter of the principle while violating its spirit. Many believe that the plan 2 loans system is predatory, regressive and kills graduates’ ambitions with stressful spiralling interest.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Young Children’s Screen Time

Luke Charters Excerpts

Tuesday 10th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of screen time on young children.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Jeremy; thank you for your time this morning.

I have always said that I am a dad first and an MP second. My son Robin is three; he is kind, and he is happiest when he is outside playing. I am proud of him every single day. My youngest, Louis, is seven months old, and he is already curious about the world, watching and taking everything in. When this job takes me away from them, it hurts. One thing is very clear: when I am at home, I need to be a properly present dad.

I want to be honest with the House: there were weeks when my phone told me I was spending more than six hours a day on it. Even on weekends, when family time should be protected, it was four or five hours. When kids are young, we never get that time back, and every hour counts. Smartphones, though, are a feat of human engineering and have been deliberately designed to take our attention, quiet and relentlessly. I had to make a deliberate change for my two boys: cutting my screen time down, choosing to be on the floor building Brio—even making a Duplo Parliament—rather than being half present and half scrolling. Present fatherhood starts with all of us putting the phone down.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing the debate. From the persona that he presents in the Chamber, I have no doubt that he is a good dad, and very responsive to his children. What is undoubted is that, when used correctly, digital technology has positive effects, but use near bedtime or overuse is leading teachers to highlight that pupils are coming to school “wrecked” or tired, and excessive use is linked to lower academic performance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must help parents and carers find a balance in the use of screen time? I made that very request in the press today.

[Mr Charters]

Parents do need a bit of support when it comes to guidance and advice around what is excessive, particularly when it comes to unsupervised screen time.

[Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend—my actual friend—is giving a brilliant speech. I pay tribute to him: he is a brilliant advocate for our generation of parents and also a wonderful dad. Does he agree that parents today are in desperate need of such guidance? I recently met Jonathan Haidt, the author of “The Anxious Generation”, and I asked him straight out, “What do we do about screens?”. He told me that watching long-form narrative content with our children is fine, but that letting them watch short-form content by themselves is a problem. We need a kind of five-a-day public health campaign from the Government. I hope that the Minister will address that.

[Sir Jeremy Wright (in the Chair)]

Before the hon. Gentleman replies, the hon. Lady is perfectly right that long-form content is better in some contexts, but not here.

[Mr Charters]

Thank you, Sir Jeremy. Briefly, my hon. Friend is a fantastic mum herself and an advocate for the great parents of Britain. Parents need advice about unsupervised screen time, particularly on smartphones, which is totally different from sitting down at a laptop doing homework. I will touch on adaptive technologies later.

Every time a child looks up and finds a parent looking down at a phone, a lesson is quietly taught about what deserves their attention. That truth was reinforced when I spoke to Zack George, known to many as Steel from “Gladiators” and now an ambassador for Smartphone Free Childhood. Zack’s message to young people is stark and powerful:

“Don’t let your phone steal your power.”

He has dedicated his life to inspiring kids and talked with thousands of schoolchildren in more than 400 school visits. Through his brand, Zactiv, he is sending a clear message to children: if you want to grow up happy and healthy, stop scrolling and keep it IRL.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

I draw my hon. Friend’s attention to Born in Bradford, an internationally recognised research cohort study. It has just launched the “In Real Life” trial with children in Bradford aged 12 to 15 to test whether reducing their social media use will reduce anxiety and improve their sleep and their relationship with their parents. Does my hon. Friend agree that such research and evidence will be essential to understanding the harmful impacts of social media on our young people?

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend for citing that study. We can draw real lessons from what is happening in Australia. Hon. Members may not be aware that some bookshops in Australia are seeing a resurgence from new young readers who are putting their phones down in favour of novels.

I have recently watched content from Dr Rangan Chatterjee, who has consistently warned about the dangers of excessive screen time, and in preparation for this speech I also gathered insights from the Youth Sport Trust and BookTrust. Each of those voices highlights similar concerns. Staying with voices from the education sector, I spoke with teacher Lee Parkinson, aka Mr P—my wife, a primary school teacher herself, can often be seen scrolling through his content on Instagram. He made a really important point that I would like all hon. Members to take away: not all screen time is created equal. Used well and supervised, technology can support learning—for a child with dyslexia, speech-to-text software can remove barriers and build confidence—but unsupervised access to personal smartphones and tablets is entirely different.

[Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)]

As someone who is dyslexic and has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, I used my phone quite a lot at school. I was also bullied quite badly, and my phone was a release. Unfortunately, the Conservatives cut the youth services in Somerset that saved my life by 100%. Does the hon. Member agree that the Government should invest more in youth services in rural communities to help young people to thrive?

[Mr Charters]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing his personal experience with us. I completely agree that young people need support in their real life, whether through youth services or physical activity.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend not just for securing this debate, but for speaking powerfully as a parent about why this is so important. We must be honest: guidance is great, but it can often miss the mark when it comes to answering the questions that parents are actually asking. I am holding a forum later in February to speak to local parents about exactly what they are looking for from the guidance. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the guidance, when we deliver it, is not only evidence-based, but grounded in the questions and experiences of parents right across Britain today?

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend for all the work he is doing through the Labour group for men and boys. It is refreshing that this Government, and particularly the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, are carefully considering this with a lot of deep thought. The consultation will not look just for one silver bullet; it will look at a variety of options.

Children are spending hours a day on platforms designed to maximise engagement and deliver constant dopamine hits through short-form video content and infinite scroll loops. The evidence increasingly shows that that is affecting attention, behaviour in schools, sleep and emotional regulation.

[Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)]

I am at the other end of my parenting journey—my little girl is 24 today. She is a paediatric nurse and has drawn my attention to the “Cocomelon” channel on YouTube, which is a sensory overload. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about not just the length of time, but the content—and sometimes the garish audio and colour of that content?

[Mr Charters]

I wish my hon. Friend’s daughter a happy birthday and thank her for the work she is doing as a paediatric nurse. “Cocomelon” has been described as “visual fentanyl” for young children. What is much more appropriate, particularly at a younger age, is more hand-drawn types of content, like “Peppa Pig”. Perhaps we all ought to go for a bit more Peppa and a bit less JJ.

You need not take my word for it, Sir Jeremy: research published by the Department for Education showed that nearly 98% of children under the age of two engage with screens every day. A University College London study in 2026 has found that toddlers now average about two hours of screen time daily—far more than my little lad is allowed. Analysis from the Centre for Social Justice estimates that, very sadly, nearly 800,000 under-fives are now using social media. Ofcom data from 2024 reveals that one third of five to seven-year-olds are using social media without any supervision. That scares the living daylights out of me as a parent.

Such data is stark, but it is just part of the story. Somewhat ironically, I turned to social media to ask my constituents about their own experiences with their young children, and they expressed concern about more than the quantity of screen time that children have. Parents responded that they were even more worried about the type of content to which children are exposed. One teacher shared with me feedback from NASUWT’s “Better Deal on Behaviour” report, with a year 1 teacher describing how children were beginning to mimic inappropriate behaviour that they had seen online, despite being far too young to understand it. Another raised the idea of digital diets. They made the point that screen time can range from something as harmless as using Google Maps to find the local library, to accessing inappropriate material. To go back to the words of Mr P, not all screen time is created equal.

On this point, it feels timely to mention that I am pleased the Government have this week launched a new campaign, “You Won’t Know until You Ask”, to address harmful content. That follows the finding from YouGov that half of British parents admit to never speaking to their children about toxic content. Encouraging parents to sit down with their children and talk about online harms helps to break down barriers. It is a healthy step in the right direction.

[Lola McEvoy]

As I said, my hon. Friend is giving a brilliant speech. Does he share my concern that relying solely on parental intervention in relation to this huge swathe of technological advances is not enough? We do not want children to start hiding things from their parents; we want to ensure that they are not exposed to it in the first place.

[Mr Charters]

I think, particularly when it comes to things like YouTube shorts, that Members of this House would never want to see a ban on YouTube, but when it comes to the user experience on those platforms, there should be things like firebreaks or rest breaks—akin to when we drive—to try to give children a pause so that they do not end up in an infinite scroll loop.

Actually, I think we should view screen time as a public health issue, not just a parenting dilemma. Health visitors meet parents at a very early stage in a child’s life. I think they should be able to talk explicitly about screen time to parents from the very start. Early guidance at that point is critical, as habits form early. As children grow older, they absorb the behaviours they see all around them, and if adults are constantly on their phones, children will almost absorb that by osmosis. The more parents are aware of that from the start, the better the outcomes can be.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

The hon. Member is giving a brilliant speech, and I am so pleased that he opened his remarks with, and spoke again just now about, the role of parents and parents’ use of mobile phones. I have recently met paediatricians, GPs and headteachers, who all say that they are observing bad use of phones in parents, which then impacts the children. Does the hon. Member agree that it has a detrimental consequence for children when parents are on screens too much?

[Mr Charters]

I thank the hon. Member for making that eloquent point. I would say that we should learn the lessons from Australia. Back in 2015, it established the eSafety Commissioner, whose work on screen time was all about linking parents and children together as part of a collective dialogue. I think we must keep young people safe by looking at age-appropriate digital spaces. So often the debate is focused on banning social media, but we would never talk about banning young people from driving; we talk about an age-appropriate limit, so that they can start driving at the age of 17.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his fantastic speech so far. He has talked about banning social media, and I completely agree with him. Does he agree with me that we are seeing a correlation between excessive screen time and poor mental health, and that social media companies need to be more accountable for what they are allowing the next generation to see, because there are some horrific things out there on social media?

[Mr Charters]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. I have spoken openly in this House about my own mental health struggles in the past. When it comes to AI tools in particular, we must ensure that they point people to the right and proper advice that is specific to the UK and the NHS, and to charities such as Samaritans.

I also believe that schools should be transparent with parents about the nature of screen use in the classroom. It is a welcome move that, thanks to the Government, Ofsted will check schools’ mobile phone policies during every inspection, with schools expected to be phone-free by default. Many schools already have thoughtful policies on tablet and laptop use, too. Although technology can absolutely be a force for good, transparency is essential so that parents can be clear about how screens are being used in school and can reinforce consistent habits at home. We cannot have a situation where the approach to screens at school is different from at home. When schools and families are aligned, children will develop clearer boundaries and healthier habits online.

The reality is that we cannot simply say, “Less smartphone screen time” and leave it at that; we also have to create positive and fulfilling alternatives. My son Robin loves charging through what we call the swamp on his balance bike, usually straight through the muddiest bit and always at maximum speed. As a parent, those magical moments with muddy knees, fresh air and real laughter are more precious than an hour in front of the telly.

We should all make better use of the things that are set by schools and already out there. Events such as sports days and World Book Days are perfect opportunities to get kids outdoors, active and reading together. That all fits with the sentiment of Zack George, aka Steel, that I referred to earlier: the less time scrolling and more time socialising, the better. In Australia, as I touched on earlier, bookshops are welcoming more young readers, libraries are seeing a renewed interest and community sports clubs are attracting younger members in record numbers. These are the positive alternatives that we must build.

Of course, none of this is as simple or straightforward as it might seem, but I am very glad that we are having a conversation about it. I like to think of myself as one of the most pro-tech MPs in this place, given my previous career. However, as the youngest parent in Parliament and a proud dad, I believe that we owe it to families to take the more harmful types of screen time seriously. After all, childhood only happens once, and if we are honest with ourselves, too much of it is now unfolding behind a screen.

At the heart of the issue is balance, because not all screen time is created equal. There is nothing wrong with children using BBC Bitesize on an iPad, learning a language on Duolingo, or even watching an episode of “Bluey”, which, as some Members will know, has an incredibly catchy theme tune. There is, of course, a balance to be struck—and if we are honest, this epidemic is affecting not just children, but adults.

To conclude, I am deeply concerned about children becoming trapped in a system that they did not design. Children did not build this digital world—it was created by forces far beyond their control—yet they are being drawn deliberately and persistently into addictive digital environments long before they have the tools to recognise or resist them. If we fail to act, it will be children who live with the consequences, not those who designed the system.

Yesterday, I met the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology to talk about the Government’s forthcoming consultation. I really welcomed her saying that many of the issues I have raised today, regarding how we prevent excessive and unsupervised screen time harming young children, will be considered. I know that she cares deeply about this matter and is considering it carefully. I thank hon. Members for joining this debate today and I hope that their points will also be considered in the consultation.

Oral Answers to Questions

Luke Charters Excerpts

Monday 19th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

The Government and I are absolutely committed to freedom of speech and academic freedom. It was a Labour Government who first enshrined freedom of expression into law through the Human Rights Act. I cannot comment on what might or might not be considered for future legislation, but I will act to protect freedom of speech and academic freedom, and we are considering options.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

Children are entitled to 30 hours of free childcare from the term after they turn nine months old, meaning that in practice some children are actually 13 months old before they get the funding. I thank Mr P and my constituent Joeli Brearley for raising this issue. Will the Minister meet me to see whether we can fix this injustice?

[Olivia Bailey]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and his constituent should he wish. As he knows, our record expansion of childcare means that more than 400,000 children benefited from additional childcare this September, and working families are saving up to £7,500 per year. I appreciate the concern that my hon. Friend describes, but termly deadlines enable local authorities and childcare providers to better plan and ensure that sufficient early years places are available.

Early Education and Childcare

Luke Charters Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

“Paw Patrol” lunchbox in hand, my son Robin started at a new preschool yesterday, and I can tell the House that I am so proud of him. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking the staff at York’s preschools and nurseries for their work in expanding free childcare?

[Stephen Morgan]

As a relatively new dad, my hon. Friend has been a real champion on these issues in this House, and it was a real pleasure to meet him earlier this year to discuss some of the issues he faces. I pay tribute to those who work in the early years sector in his constituency—they are working day in, day out to ensure every child gets the best start in life.

Financial Education

Luke Charters Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) for securing the debate.

A typical weekend for me starts at the shop, but not a high-street one, although there are plenty of those in York. Instead, it is my toddler’s plastic shop full of fruit, veg and, of course, Yorkshire Tea. When I try to pay with cash, I am told, “No, daddy! Use card.” It is a world away from growing up, even in the 1990s.

We face a great paradox in this country. We have a world-leading financial services sector, but, according to a recent UK Finance report, the UK ranks 15th out of 29 countries for financial literacy among adults. It is imperative that we do better here at home. For too long we have struggled to bolster financial education in schools. My wife is a dedicated teacher, whose current battle is teaching children about the value and shape of a 20p coin. On a more serious note, however, I worry about the impact that social media has on children when it comes to financial advice. I call this the “Tiktokification” of financial education. We often see influencers giving out unregulated advice, driving the sale of harmful products plugged as “get quick rich” schemes. As a former regulator at the Financial Conduct Authority, I can say with some degree of certainty that regulators are not up to speed on this.

Let me now say something about the insurance sector. At the FCA, we saw that consumers had a poor understanding of matters such as “shrinkflation” when their policies did not keep up to date with their needs. Too rarely did they understand concepts such as auto-renewal. Far too many households, we find in Britain, are either under-covered or over-covered.

[Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend’s speech has made me laugh, as his speeches usually do.

Through my family and the community in which I grew up, I have seen that many people who fall victim to scams were once extremely savvy about financial management. The people who fall into these traps once ran their own businesses or had quite a mature understanding of these things. Financial education has its limits, so we still need very strong protections. When many people have more than one insurance policy for the same thing, are we not failing them? They do not need education; they just need people they can go to who can protect them and give them advice on issues they may never fully understand.

[Mr Charters]

I will come on to scams, but on the question of advice, I welcome the FCA’s advice guidance boundary review. Financial advice is often too difficult for consumers to access. We also need greater financial education on insurance.

I recently used Google Analytics to research search trends. Since 2004, there has been a rapid increase in the number of people searching “opt out of my pension.” How can we expect people to save into their pension when the benefits are so poorly communicated? The public are asked to fuel their car for a long journey, but when it comes to retirement, they do not know how far the road goes. We must make that cultural shift. With the forthcoming pension review, we must reinvent and reinvigorate our retirement savings. There is no more important time to educate people about pensions than at school.

Members will know that I am passionate about tackling fraud. Indeed, my old job was breaking fraud attempts in the private sector. Even now, as an MP, I hear heartbreaking stories of constituents who have fallen victim to scams. The British population is targeted by organised criminals from across the globe, which is driven by the popularity of the English language and the affluence of the UK. I know from a recent visit to City of London police that fraud and cyber-crime account for 50% of all crime—let that sink in. For too long, the UK has been a target. I praise the Minister for Security, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley North (Dan Jarvis), and Lord Hanson for their important work. Greater public awareness of how to spot a scam, and socialising some of these concepts, is important.

I praise Martin Lewis for raising awareness of celebrity impersonation scams, and I praise his Money and Mental Health Policy Institute for doing much to remove the stigma of being scammed. Greater education ultimately means greater fraud awareness. Financial education is not the sole responsibility of this House, this Government or even teachers. It is down to firms, and I am heartened by my engagement with the sector. StepChange has also done important work on debt advice. I give a special shout-out to the Financial Inclusion Commission, which I recently joined. When it comes to financial education, we must ensure that the financial sector plays its part.

I close by returning to my son’s plastic greengrocery. I am doing my bit for the next generation, but I am just one household. We have to think of new ways to engage the generation of tomorrow on things like pensions, scams and insurance. This requires financial education in schools, and I hope to play my part in that debate.

School Accountability and Intervention

Luke Charters Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the children in her area, and she is absolutely right to champion better outcomes. We know that the journey towards not achieving the grades that children should achieve starts at the earliest stage, which is why, as I have said, we are investing in the early years. The Ofsted report cards will shine a light on the issue of attendance—we know that children cannot get a great education if they are not at school to get it, and attendance must be a priority for schools—but we recognise the challenges, so we want to support schools to be able to achieve better attendance figures, and we will do so by diagnosing those challenges and putting in place the self-supporting schools system that can drive those better outcomes.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

The Harris Federation has just revealed that its chief executive’s pay is in excess of half a million pounds a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need much more transparency and accountability when it comes to the excessive pay of some multi-academy trust leaders?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will take it away and look at it.

Government’s Childcare Expansion

Luke Charters Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

We are absolutely committed to being a child-centred Government, and it is vital that we deliver the programme in the areas in most need. That means making sure that we understand where there are gaps in places and in the workforce, and we look forward to working closely with the sector to ensure that the scheme makes the biggest difference in communities that need it the most.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

This announcement is particularly fitting, as my son started preschool today. Many hard-working parents in York Outer welcome today’s news, but many feel that some providers are taking the biscuit when it comes to funded hours, abnormalities, unfair top-up fees and even restrictions on the days of the week on which funded hours can be used. Will the Minister meet me so that I can pass on York Outer parents’ concerns about the funded hours scheme?

[Stephen Morgan]

I am very happy to meet my hon. Friend, and I wish his son good luck as he starts nursery today.

Ofsted

Luke Charters Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd September 2024 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman has very much set out our aim and intention, and that is why we will consult extensively on this. We have given ourselves till September 2025 to have the report cards in place, and we want to ensure that we have input from education experts, parents and children, and that we maximise this opportunity to, as he put it, maximise the information that parents will find useful and the information that schools will find useful, to drive the improvement that they want for their children.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

York Outer is home to many inspirational teachers and I am proud that my wife is one of them, but heads tell me that there is a recruitment and retention crisis. Does the Minister agree that the end of Ofsted headline judgments will improve teacher retention, and can she update the House on the plans to recruit 6,500 specialist teachers?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wish his wife, and all teachers starting their new school term, well. It is an incredibly exciting time. It is a little bit daunting for some, but it is an important opportunity to reset their school life at the beginning of a new year.

Similarly, this is an opportunity for us to reset our relationship with the sector. In doing so, we must ensure that we can recruit the necessary teachers. We must make teaching the attractive, respected and admired profession that it should be, to ensure that we meet the pledge to recruit 6,500 new teachers. We have already started the work. We have reset the relationship and the tone, we have obviously made progress on the pay review, and we will continue to strive to reach our target to ensure that every school has the teachers it needs, and that every child has the teachers they need, especially in the subjects that require specialist teaching.