Student Loan Repayment Plans

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 25th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Jas Athwal]

I think the whole system needs to be reformed. Tinkering around the edges is not going to cut it any more; we are looking for a much fairer system.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have spoken to the students’ unions at York St John University and the University of York, as well as many graduates, who have told me that a student loan does not even cover the cost of living in our city because housing is so expensive—not only does it put people in debt for the future, but it does not even meet the need now. I believe progressive taxation is the way forward, so that the more someone earns, the more they can pay back into the system, to invest in education, which benefits us all.

[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.

Foster Care: Recruitment and Retention

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 24th February 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Smith]

It makes a huge amount of sense that foster carers are considered a key part of that process. I am sure that in certain parts of the country they are, but it sounds from the hon. Member’s question like there are other parts where some work is needed.

Independent fostering agencies are responsible for 44% of mainstream fostering households. They account for nearly 38,000 children in foster care in England. If their current growth continues, they have the potential to become the largest provider of fostering services.

When children enter the care system, they are first triaged by the local authority. If the local authority is not able to place a child in its own fostering service, it will ask an IFA to step in instead. That explains in part why IFAs overwhelmingly care for children with complex needs, including children with challenging behaviours, medical needs and those who have experienced numerous placement breakdowns. They also tend to be more successful at placing older children.

IFAs are more effective than local authorities at recruitment and retention, and less expensive, but they have been consistently overlooked by the Government. Ofsted reports consistently demonstrate that IFAs offer high-quality care to children, excellent support for foster carers and value for money for local authorities. Some 96% of IFAs are rated good or outstanding by Ofsted; by contrast, only 60% of local authorities were judged to be good or outstanding. Sixty-one per cent of IFA approvals are completed within six months, compared with only 41% of local authority approvals. However, until now, the Government have not properly acknowledged the growing contribution of IFAs and the vulnerable children who are impacted as a result.

The Government’s fostering policy paper launches regional care co-operatives, which will plan, deliver and commission homes for children at scale. However, the Government have failed to recognise the crucial role that IFAs play; instead, they seem to place them in direct competition with the new RCCs. IFAs already have experience in regionalisation, yet they are left out of all conversations. They are not sitting around the table with local authorities. I believe that is short-sighted and counterproductive. It is crucial that the Government engage with IFAs, along with local authorities, to better learn from their experience.

RCC decisions must be based on the best interests of the child and not simply the provider type. We need transparent placement protocols that include IFAs at every stage of consideration. RCCs should avoid blanket exclusions or prioritisation of local authority foster carers without due regard to individual need. It is about what is best for the child.

In my view, a mixed economy approach to foster care is the most efficient model and improves outcomes for vulnerable children. Compared with local authorities, IFAs are agile because they can respond more quickly, especially since they face less financial pressure. IFAs are also better at long-term planning. From my own experience in local government, I know that the relentless four-year election cycle—indeed, in Plymouth, we have elections every year for three years—hampers long-term strategic oversight for foster carers, whereas IFAs can consistently provide the care unhindered. Local authorities have so many other pressures on their time and resources, whereas IFAs can focus on doing one thing really well: providing consistent support tailored to a foster family’s needs.

Parents who use IFAs testify to the bespoke support that they provide. Janet has been a foster parent for 23 years and has cared for 11 children. Having previously adopted two boys, she saw the life-changing impact a stable home can offer. After experiencing a lack of support from a local authority, Janet transferred to the IFA that has supported them for the past 12 years. She says:

“I have 24/7 access to support from people who know me and my family. The conversations are open, honest and non-judgemental, and always centred on the children.”

Their IFA assures careful placement matching and treats carers as valued partners in the child’s care.

Ruth and Chris have a background in mental health services, so they are attuned to the way that trauma can shape a child’s life. They say:

“Foster children have often endured things they never should. Our motto is to drown them in love—it’s not just a job, it’s a way of life.”

Through their local IFA, they receive a vital support package, easy access to social workers, tailored training, and funding support for their children to do the activities they love. They say:

“If you call, you get help the same day. It’s personal, nurturing, and non-judgmental.”

Ruth and Chris’s local service has enabled them to work with the same psychologist for six years, which provides crucial continuity for their foster children. They contrast that with the poor communication they experienced when fostering via their local authority. One time they received files with such poor notes that they could not even tell which gender the children were.

All that being said, Plymouth city council is a success story of a local authority that is working really well. The council runs its own in-house fostering agency, Foster for Plymouth—in fact, it even gives out trolley tokens for people to carry around with them. It currently has 111 approved fostering households, which offer 234 placements for children. For context, Plymouth currently has a total of 525 children in its care, so that proportion is encouraging, and it is growing. The in-house agency provides significant value for money: it costs £571 per child per week, which is lower than the cost of IFAs, at more than £1,200 per week. However, this is an unusual situation; it is not replicated in many local authorities across the country. It is also, of course, far less expensive than the cost of residential care, at more than £9,400 a week.

Foster for Plymouth has built great relationships with local organisations, including Dartmoor zoo, in my constituency, and it regularly encourages businesses to offer discounts to foster carers. By offering a council tax exemption for foster carers, the council has seen 17 households sign up in the past year. It is also worth saying that we established a looked-after children covenant, because we recognised that if we wanted to ensure that the whole city was prioritising looked-after children and previously looked-after children, that was one way of doing it. I really believe Plymouth has some good practice here.

The council has also allocated a dedicated budget for carers who may need to do loft conversions and other home alterations to care for more children. I am sure the Minister has heard people mention that as a hindrance in the past. I think it is a really practical way of encouraging people to continue fostering. The council has developed a marketing campaign aimed specifically at people who have never considered fostering. In terms of wider collaboration, the council hosts an annual fostering summit and works closely with the Fostering South West hub.

A linked issue that I want to highlight is the postcode lottery when it comes to fostering fees, which are paid to foster carers in recognition of the skills and time involved in fostering. Although allowances for foster carers are set nationally, there is no legislation or guidance about fees, and that leads to wildly differing fee payments across the country. Shockingly, some foster carers receive £38,000 a year more than others, according to the Fostering Network, a national charity. In fact, some carers receive no fee, and many receive as little as £18 a week. Better remuneration for foster carers would help with both recruitment and retention and reflect their valuable contribution to society.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Feedback from foster carers in York has highlighted the differential in the sums of money they receive for Staying Put and for foster caring, which makes it really difficult for them to decide whether to maintain that home—that safe place—for a child or to push the child out of the home. Does the hon. Member agree that those resources should be equalised, to ensure a smooth pathway for these very vulnerable children?

[Rebecca Smith]

Anything that encourages a consistent home for young people is vital. One thing I have not had time to mention yet is the use of supported lodgings, which we have talked about before. Ultimately, I have seen the success of enabling young people to stay within a home, so anything that encourages that is definitely worth pursuing.

Many parents give up work to foster; in fact, about 60% of foster carers do not work. Foster carers provide a professional service, and they should not be expected to do so on a shoestring. Only a quarter of foster carers say they feel their fee is sufficient to cover essential living costs. Better financial support would increase their autonomy to make decisions that are in the best interests of their children. The Fostering Network is calling on the Government to introduce a national recommended fee framework for foster carers, which would reduce the unfair variation across the country. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s response to that call.

To fix the chronic problems facing children’s services, the Government must focus on encouraging more people to become and remain foster carers, which I know they are seeking to do. Many people already have the skills and the compassion to open up their home to a child in need. Often, all they lack is the right incentives and support, so I am encouraged by the Government’s national action plan, which acknowledges the urgent need for systemic reform. However, the plan will succeed only if carers feel properly recognised and sustained over the long term.

The measures that I have outlined would go some way towards improving foster carer recruitment and retention. First, given that IFAs are more effective and less expensive than local authority provision, I urge the Government to give them a seat around the table during the regionalisation process. Secondly, the Government should fix the postcode lottery for foster care fees. Thirdly, they should learn from Plymouth as an example of outstanding local authority provision. I am sure that it would welcome a visit from the Minister, if he has never been down there, to see what it is doing and meet some of the young people who have been so affected by this policy. Ultimately, every delay in fixing the system means another child waiting for the loving, stable foster family they deserve, and we cannot allow structural barriers to stand in their way.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Jeremy. I thank both the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for securing the debate and other Members for their interventions. This is my first opportunity to talk about the fostering action plan in Parliament, so I thank the hon. Lady for allowing me to set out some of the details and to respond to the points she rightly raised.

Since my appointment last September, I have made renewing our fostering system my No. 1 priority as the Minister for Children and Families. Through extensive engagement and discussion, we have pulled together a bold plan, recognising the urgency of the problem that faces us. Earlier this month, we published our action plan, six-week consultation and call for evidence to renew fostering and create 10,000 additional foster care places by the end of this Parliament. We have done this 100 years on from the Adoption of Children Act 1926—the centenary of adoption and fostering as we know it—which created much of the framework that we now work within.

Now is the time to renew our fostering system. Foster care numbers are in decline: the total number has dropped by 12% since 2019, and we face a major demographic challenge because around one third of current carers are over 60, which will compound the problem in the years ahead. There are currently appalling conversion rates and unacceptable delays in approving carers. The 150,000 inquiries made last year only saw 7,300 newly approved foster carers, and 59% of fostering assessments in local authorities take more than six months.

All that is driving pressure on residential care, resulting in children living in residential care settings when they could—and should—be living in family-based homes. There was a 24% increase in children living in residential care between 2020 and 2025, with the number now at over 18,000 children. Yet research looking at children’s needs shows that 45% of children in residential care have the same level of need as those in foster care. The result of that pressure on many foster carers is poor matches, a lack of support and an outdated rulebook that signals a lack of trust and respect. The total impact of all that on our children is that too many are forced to live away from their school, friends and family. There are too many matches that mean they do not get the connections they need, and too many are in residential care when it is not the right fit for them.

The status quo and fostering decline run at complete odds with our wider reforms to children’s social care. It means that we are breaking rather than making lifelong, loving relationships and driving the cost escalator towards ever-expanding residential care, and there is evidence of profiteering. Between 2020 and 2025, spending on residential care doubled to £3.7 billion. Our wider reforms will keep more families safely together and mean greater support for kinship options. They are backed by a major reform programme and £2.4 billion of additional spending. Even with all that, renewing our fostering system demands real focus, national leadership and ambition. I will set out the actions we are taking to give thousands more children in care the choices they need to have the enduring relationships that must become the obsession of the care system.

First, to make sure that the whole of the English system is galvanised by the target that we have set of 10,000 care places, we are renewing local authority fostering teams and expanding fostering hubs that have made meaningful progress to take on the full end-to-end process. We are pushing fostering hubs to take on the whole process rather than just the initial inquiry stage. According to our plans, the majority of local authorities in England this year will recruit and train foster carers in end-to-end hubs. Those hubs will be held to account for rolling out the most effective features of existing hubs, so that we can get the conversion rates up. We will also launch new hubs in the coming weeks.

Further to that, we will create the second wave of regional care co-operatives with greater clarity: they will not simply be commissioning bodies but directly create provision and be tied to fostering hubs. To respond to the points raised around IFAs by the hon. Member for South West Devon, the RCC’s role is in many respects to strike a better relationship with the not-for-profit and profit-making sectors in both fostering and residential care. Throughout the whole process of building the plans I have engaged with independent fostering organisations and will continue to do that. They have value to add into the process and can bring innovation into it. But I want to add a word of caution: there is evidence from Competition and Markets Authority studies that profit-making independent fostering bodies cost more on average than local authority fostering, and it is being done for profit.

With the direction of travel that we have seen the residential care system going in, we are now at a point where about 90% of all residential care is run on a for-profit basis and where the largest companies demonstrate behaviour that amounts to profiteering. I do not want to see that replicated in the fostering system, so we need to grip it before that happens. Market failure will be the result of inaction from the Government in this field, and I will not tolerate that.

All other local authorities that are not in an RCC or a fostering hub will be set stretching targets to approve, and we will set new standards on the process overall. Ofsted will update its inspection framework to hold those local authorities to account. We are also consulting on whether the role of fostering panels for approvals should be changed, and whether that adds value to the process commensurate with the time and cost involved in those fostering panels. We will launch a digital platform to speed up the process. All of that should speed up conversion rates and get more approved carers as soon as possible.

[Rachael Maskell]

Could the Minister say a little more about how foster carers from within families will be handled in this process? That is really important. Also, how will the reunification process work, so that we can reunite a child with their birth family?

[Josh MacAlister]

My hon. Friend is at risk of taking me off down two very important subjects that I would love to spend an entire Westminster Hall debate talking about. Briefly, I want to see the fostering approval system change so that it is sensitive to the differences between approving, for example, a known person to that child who will only ever foster that child, and approving foster carers who are doing it through the more conventional route. The problem at the moment, as I have heard from many kinship carers, is that they are held to standards that are just not appropriate. Grandparents are being given a hard time because they vape, or because they have only one spare room and they are wanting to look after two grandchildren. I want all that swept away so that we can have a common-sense system that gets behind the people who are already in that child’s life and love them, so that that becomes the central focus of how we structure the care system.

Similarly for reunification practice, it is important that people recognise more widely that the route from living with parents to living in care often involves going back and forth many times, and it should not. We need to build a care system that can wrap around families and parents who might be struggling. The option of part-time foster care or family fostering can offer real value. I did a radio call-in this morning on that very point and spoke to a young care-experienced person called Mary who had that experience of moving in and out of care. I think she said her mum was bipolar. Mary’s mum loves her and can offer some care and support to her, so it would be great if the care system could bolster Mary’s family rather than replace Mary’s family, if it is safe to do so. That is what we should try to do at every step with the care system.

Secondly, we will scale and support innovation to get new carers and look after the ones who are already caring, because retention is as important as recruitment. We will double down on Mockingbird, the programme of support for existing foster carers, funding another 100 constellations. We will also set new standards of support for all carers so that they can benefit from the features that make Mockingbird such a success. We will take Room Makers, first started in Greater Manchester—a programme that sounds very similar to the one mentioned by the hon. Member for South West Devon—to national roll-out. At least £25 million will fund extensions or renovations so that children can stay connected for longer, or grow up with their brothers and sisters in the same house. We will launch a fostering innovation programme to bring forward even more new thinking, with a focus on new and flexible models of care, like weekenders, step down, and specialist care and support for retention.

Specifically, I have been delighted to work with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to set up a new programme to scale up remand fostering so that children do not unnecessarily enter young offender institutions. Through all of that, we will encourage partnerships between fostering hubs and independent fostering associations, as the hon. Member for South West Devon has highlighted. Renewing fostering means opening up to new models of care and new families. The Government welcome that innovation.

Thirdly, we will rewrite the rulebook around fostering, prioritising making foster care feel human, loving and normal for children, and respected and supported for carers. We have launched a rapid consultation on changes to the allegations process, which has been a source of complaint for many years. We are doing that so that it is fairer for carers and does not unduly rock existing strong relationships.

We have launched a call for evidence on a range of issues, including a foster care national register and consistency of allowances. We will be setting out a process of analysing the variation of allowances across the country in order to highlight the point that hon. Members have raised. We will make some changes around the distinctive role of kinship and connected carers in fostering, and the training and support that they need. That will lead to a rewriting of national minimum standards and other statutory guidance for fostering at the earliest opportunity. We will take immediate steps to clarify that foster carers must be respected in conversations about their child among professionals. We are also immediately taking action to clarify that the day-to-day decisions about children, such as permissions to get haircuts and overnight stays, should be made by foster carers by default, not exception.

We are rewriting the rulebook to put long-lasting relationships first, and that will be part of wider action to take on myths about who can and cannot care. Our vision is a fostering system built on relationships that last. By recruiting and retaining more carers, acting regionally, innovating, supporting families and simplifying the rules, we will create thousands more foster families across England that are closer to children’s communities and schools. We know we can do that because the appetite is there in the country; we are just failing to convert it. We have done it in recent history: the Homes for Ukraine scheme showed what we can do when confronted with a problem. Civic society and Government can be mobilised in harmony towards a shared goal.

This is a decisive moment for fostering in England; together we will ensure that every child who could thrive in foster care has the option of a home to grow up in, with the love, stability and opportunity that they deserve.

Question put and agreed to.

Education Funding: Distribution

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Pippa Heylings]

I am sorry to hear what has happened with that school, but I think we need to look, in the round, at what is happening to all schools and all school funding. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s mention of the statutory override, and I will come to it later in my speech.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for securing this important debate. Sadly, York falls below Cambridgeshire and Gloucestershire in the tables, and ours is the lowest-funded authority under the new fair funding formula, although we have high levels of deprivation. Does the hon. Member agree that when we are looking at school funding—pupils in York are worth as much as those in Camden—we need to look across the piece? York also receives the lowest amount of health funding, and low funding across the board means that our children are getting even less funding.

Local Authority Children’s Services

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 28th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for chairing the debate, Mr Western. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) for representing his constituents so well in this debate, and in particular, given the horror story that he shared, I express my condolences to Sara’s family.

Colleagues may have heard York’s story, but those who have not are about to hear it. The hon. Member for Woking was right to say that York moved from the position of “requires improvement” to “outstanding” in one go. I have to point out to the Minister that our local authority has the lowest level of funding per capita after the fair funding review, which does not seem fair at all because we are not the most affluent place by far.

The catalyst for the change in York comes down to two people: Martin Kelly, the director of children’s services, and his deputy, Danielle Johnson. I pay tribute to them. If hon. Members want to learn about York’s journey and the outstanding achievements that have occurred, the director and his deputy are open to dialogue. At the heart of the change was a new practice model with a committed workforce. We moved from 45 agency staff to zero, on the basis that if someone was not committed to the service and the children, they had no place in the authority. A pioneering approach puts children at the heart, builds on co-production, innovates for change and evidences practice. Through reform, costs have been cut by £7 million. Through co-ordination across services, the local authority has built stability and made a difference to every child.

We are desperate to do more—to reshape services, drive change and press ahead with transformations. The model moves from transactional to relational, risk avoidance to risk management, safe certainty to safe uncertainty—that is just about being honest about risk—and short-term interventions to long-term outcomes. Every decision has the child at its centre and considers the long-term implications of each decision, developing resilience all the time. Its strength-based approach seeks out every opportunity for the child and is summed up,

“Our children belong in York, connected to the people they love and supported by the network around them.”

But the journey does not end there. A child or young person’s holistic needs should be met in one place, so here are my asks of the Minister. Mental health services must be integrated around the child, not separated in the child and adolescent mental health services, which is failing all our young people. We have a SEND hub in the city where all children can gather, along with parents and professionals, in an integrated way, but we need CAMHS as part of the conversation. That will remove the need for a diagnosis, because a label does not describe where a child is on multiple spectrums. We must have fully integrated support around a child’s needs.

We need to start young, so I urge the Minister to put the investment into the 1,001 critical days. We know that in the case of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, for instance, we need to ensure at the very start of life that we have got the right interventions around the parents, including during the nine months of pregnancy. We will then have a stronger opportunity to prevent care orders in future and ensure that there is appropriate antenatal care, as well as comprehensive support for the family.

We also need funding in York. I mentioned how low our funding is. We have eight areas in the lowest quintile of deprivation in our city. Everyone, including Ministers, talks about how York is a beautiful city, about the Vikings, and about the walls and the Minster, but that does not make a child safer. In fact, many of the children have never seen those assets, and many are struggling because we simply do not have the resources we need. When it comes to per capita funding, York is in the lowest 25 for schools and 23rd for higher needs funding. Our city needs more funding, because a child in York is worth as much as a child in Camden, and yet we have about a third of the funding to do things. More than that, we want to be able to push our model further, provide more services for parents and ensure that we can keep the family together, which is our objective as we seriously reduce the number of children in social care.

We also want to drive our model of good practice further, so that we can draw on the world’s best practice and bring it into York, particularly in the early years—those pre-school years—to support parents on their journey as well. We must work with a child’s developmental pathway, not against it. We therefore need to ensure that we have the right pedagogies in place. I was disappointed earlier in the week in the debate on play in education. To work with children we really need to understand the way that the mind develops.

My plea to the Minister is to look through a prism of poverty. We have significant areas of poverty in York, and yet if we put in the right investment, we know that we can make a difference to our children.

We are ambitious in York, and I am proud to showcase all that we have done, but we desperately want to go further. We know we can do it—in York, we have always been a laboratory of social change, a pioneering spirit built within all of us—and therefore I urge Government to work with us to deliver more not only of the Government’s objectives but of our own, for our children.

Key Stage 1 Curriculum

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 26th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the Petitions Committee on focusing on such an important debate, the 216 of my constituents who made the case through the petition, and the teachers and support staff who have very much brought this to my attention. I raise for the record that my sister works in early years, and every night when I go home from this place, she tells me about the importance of play. I have no better counsel than her.

The pedagogies that are integrated into our education system will determine the long-term outcomes of a child’s learning and development. It is only natural for a child to engage in explorative, creative and imaginative play when engaging with language and new concepts. It is play that helps a child to process their learning, reinforce its application and take pleasure in the process—of course, roleplay plays a vital role as well. It is during play that a child also learns wider physical and social skills. They will be connecting the neural pathways in their brains and embedding principles deep in their mind.

[Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)]

Many constituents have contacted me about this important debate, and as a mum of three children, I have seen for myself just how important play is and how much it has helped them to understand teamwork and problem-solving. It is not just me who says that; UNICEF tells us how much it helps resilience, reduces stress and supports emotional wellbeing. Does the hon. Member agree that there are so many ways that play could be integrated into the key stage 1 curriculum as part of education?

[Rachael Maskell]

I completely agree with the hon. Member. She made the point so powerfully, not least because of her own experience.

It is really important that we embed play as a fundamental principle in the curriculum. For far too long, play has been seen as a process of reward or enrichment, not as a fundamental part of a child’s learning, but it is vital throughout childhood for that purpose. To deny play as a core learning approach for improving reading, writing or maths is to not understand education. Helping a child find their own creativity will help them find themselves.

Play-based learning is purposeful. Teachers have to really prepare when they integrate play into their work: they have to set the right environment, introduce the right medium, equip the learning space, indoor and out, and integrate that with the interests of the children to optimise the environment and ensure that they really grasp the concepts that they are being taught. As we have heard, England is an outlier in this area, and we have to catch up.

When I visited Carr infant school, I saw the contribution that play made to every part of the curriculum. When the school centred learning on play, its outcomes improved. Burton Green school has created environments where children can explore and engage. Whether it is Osbaldwick, Acomb primary or Westfield community school, so many schools across York have totally embraced the evidence of the importance of play.

The neuroscience very much determines that play is central. My constituent Charlotte Davies regularly reminds me of the importance of motor and sensory integration so that the brain can be trained to help a child’s ability to play. That is often lost as children are forced away from the right pathways for their education. We need to develop the right pedagogies and ensure that we are creating the physical and mental opportunities to learn.

The Government are grappling with the opportunities around developing a proper SEND programme, which we know is important, but if we are going to divert children from just spending time on their screens, creative play, integrated into learning, will make a difference. My plea to the Government is this: follow the evidence, and when it comes to assessments and examinations, let us drop those SATs and ensure instead that we have a proper approach to education.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank all hon. Members who have attended and contributed to this important debate, and thank all those who signed and engaged with the petition, particularly those who are in the Public Gallery to listen to the debate. I know from conversations with the Minister for School Standards, my hon. Friend the Member for Queen’s Park and Maida Vale (Georgia Gould), who has responsibility for this area but is unfortunately unable to attend this debate due to a prior commitment, that this subject has drawn much attention and support from many constituents.

My primary goal as an Education Minister is to give every child the best possible start in life. I have had the pleasure of visiting primary schools and early years providers across the country, including many wonderful examples in my constituency of Reading West and Mid Berkshire such as Theale Church of England primary school, and Calcot junior school, whose pupils are coming to Parliament later this week. It was clear on all my visits how important play is to younger children’s wellbeing and development. Some of my best days in my job as Minister for Early Education have included being attacked by plastic dinosaurs and racking up my dry cleaning bill in muddy outdoor play areas. It has been a privilege to listen to hon. Members’ thoughtful contributions and hear about the excellent work being done in their constituencies.

The hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) started off the debate wonderfully by reminding us that the best sound in the world is that of children playing at break time and lunch time—I wholeheartedly agree. She also drew on a theme that was important throughout the debate: the distinction between play-based learning and enrichment. The Government accept that distinction.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore) has been running a fantastic campaign in her constituency against the closure of playgrounds. The Government are determined to do something about such closures, and we committed £18 million to that very issue in the Budget. Other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), touched on that issue.

We have had fantastic contributions, which I enjoyed listening to, from my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East (Tom Hayes) and for Thurrock (Jen Craft), the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (James McMurdock) and my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North (David Baines) on the importance of play. Of course I add my birthday wishes to my hon. Friend’s son; I hope he gets a chance to have a good play with his new toys.

There have also been important contributions on play and screen time and on school readiness from my hon. Friends the Members for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Wolverhampton North East (Mrs Brackenridge). On the question of ensuring that screens are not displacing play, the Government are determined: we will bring forward the first ever guidance for parents on screen time in early years, take tough action to ensure that there are no phones in any schools so children are not disrupted from play or learning, and work with parents and families to find the right balance so that children at school or nursery are doing what they should be doing: playing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock touched on the importance of play for early language development. That is very much part of this Government’s plans for school readiness as we strive to ensure that record numbers of children are ready for school. My hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood remembered the great Frank Dobson—a huge advocate for play—and I thank her for bringing his memory to the debate.

England’s early years foundation stage statutory framework recognises the importance of play, setting out that play, both indoors and outdoors, is essential for children’s development, including physical development, communication and language. I agree with colleagues that the impact of play on children’s development and wellbeing does not stop when they reach school age. We will help schools to decide how best to support children’s transition from the early years foundation stage into key stage 1. Some schools continue elements of the pedagogical approach of the EYFS, including play, into year 1 to enable a gradual transition.

Ultimately, however, we believe that teachers are best placed to apply their professional judgment and creativity to meet the pupils’ needs in this area. It is important that teachers have the flexibility to adapt their approach to best support each pupil to obtain the knowledge, skills and understanding that they should do during their education. We re-emphasised that principle in our response to the curriculum and assessment review last November, and that is why it would not be right for us to legislate to make play and continuous provision statutory in the key stage 1 curriculum.

That does not for a second mean that we expect children in year 1 to spend all day every day sat inside, and it certainly does not mean that play is no longer on the agenda. The Government have committed £18 million to upgrade 200 playgrounds across the country, we are amending the national planning policy framework to protect play spaces and my colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care have published the first national guidance on commissioning and delivering health play services. In education, we are also acting to provide children with opportunities outside the classroom. I recognise the important distinction that colleagues have made, but enrichment is also important in schools. We will set out a new core enrichment offer that every school and college should provide for every pupil, delivering access to civic engagement, arts and culture, nature, outdoor and adventure, sport and physical activities, and wider life skills.

Our free breakfast clubs are also a brilliant opportunity for schools to incorporate more play into each day, offering 30 minutes in the morning where children can explore a range of activities, whether kicking a football around or building a Lego masterpiece, in a supportive and calm environment. Across the country, I have seen breakfast clubs where schools are using this Labour Government’s investment to help children explore their imagination and creativity. Of course, breakfast clubs also help to drive improvements in behaviour, attendance and attainment, and provide families with more affordable childcare choices.

I will briefly mention our curriculum reforms. This Government recognise that our children are stepping into a world of huge opportunity, but also of immense change and challenge. We want our new national curriculum to arm them to thrive, building skills that have been spoken about in this debate, such as communication, creativity and social and emotional skills, which can be developed through play and a wide range of enrichment activities.

In conclusion, this Government are serious about the importance of play in childhood, and across Government Departments we are investing in the infrastructure of play and in a transformed early years system. Although we do not agree with the specific suggestion outlined in the petition that play and continuous provision should be mandated as part of the national curriculum at key stage 1, we trust teachers to make the best choices for their students. We thank everyone for coming today and for their thoughtful—

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister give way?

[Olivia Bailey]

My hon. Friend has got me right at the end of my speech, but I will give way to her.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will she go back to the Department and ask people there to engross themselves in the evidence, which overwhelmingly shows the importance of integrating play with learning, and to ensure that we take an evidence-based approach to policy making?

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank my hon. Friend for her last-minute intervention and I can reassure her that we in the Department are immersed and engrossed in the evidence. Our view is that play can be a very important way of helping children to learn. However, we do not think that it is right to mandate it at key stage 1, because we believe that it is important for teachers to have flexibility themselves. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend knows—and as her sister, a fantastic superhero working in early years, will know—play is embedded as part of the EYFS curriculum.

Mrs Barker, I will leave it there.

Universities: Statutory Duty of Care

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Tuesday 13th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) on setting out the case for a statutory duty of care so well.

Students face an array of intersecting pressures throughout their student journey. One is the cost of living. York is one of the most expensive places to be a student, not least because of the lack of supply and the cost of accommodation. That bears down on students, who have to take on more responsibilities, often working full time alongside their studies. Having to dedicate more of their time to surviving compromises their studies, yet universities seem quite impervious to understanding those cost pressures by putting mitigation in place, whether by providing accommodation or by supporting students who do not succeed because they have to spend more time on their work.

Transport pressures also bear down on students, as does the array of challenges that young people face today, including social media, violence and sexual violence, and we have talked about the interplay of neurodivergence and mental health. It is really important that there be a statutory duty of care on universities to provide holistic support around a student.

We must also recognise the challenges facing international students, who have not yet been mentioned in this debate. They are from another jurisdiction with different mental health models, but they also face challenges with their immigration status, which I have come across in York. We need to look at the system. An Iranian student today who would not be able to return to Iran because of the situation there must be able to change their status here. There are many intersections for international students, which we must take on board.

In 2015, York had a real surge in the number of students who took their lives. I congratulate the universities and the wider community on looking at how they could put mitigation in place, but 1,108 students have since taken their lives across the country. Therefore, this situation does permeate the sector.

[Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)]

As near neighbours with universities in our constituencies, my hon. Friend and I see a real patchwork of support at universities across the country. Does she agree that a statutory duty would bring universities on a level playing field with hospitals, schools and employers? I am co-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on students, and this is something that we have long called for. Does she not think it is time that we brought forward the statutory duty to support all those students?

[Rachael Maskell]

I agree. We must legislate in this place; that is why we are here. I particularly want to thank the student unions, because they are the people who are making the case, day by day, to the employers and the universities about the need to provide that statutory duty and the necessary services.

I want to address a different issue that has not been raised in the debate, around mental health services. We know that they are in crisis and, as a result, they are not responding to needs. Often, somebody will have a relationship with their mental health service at home but not when they move to a new area. We need a better transition for people who are neurodivergent, but also for those who experience mental health challenges, to ensure that they are properly engaged with those mental health services. The problem we have is that it is always somebody else’s problem, so we need to ensure that those mental health services are provided through a different model. Particularly within the student setting, I encourage a primary rather than secondary care model, because often the thresholds are in the wrong place for proper engagement. In the primary care setting, there can be a partnership formed between the university, the GPs and professionals to ensure that those services are timely.

My final point is about students who do not succeed in their studies and the welfare services that are wrapped around those students. There must always be a second chance for a student. Perhaps they do not get the scores they need; perhaps their relationships with some of their lecturers and professors are not, shall I say, cordial. As a result, conflict can often arise. We always need a second chance for a student so that there is another avenue to pursue and another opportunity ahead of them. That is what a statutory duty of care will confirm for students.

Higher Education: Government Support

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 12th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alaba]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and welcome his comments. Indeed, the business model that a lot of universities have used over the past 14 years has meant that they have focused on international students, which is one of the reasons that we are having this debate.

Passionate staff fear that if the university’s share of the Forum library is sold, the result would be significant financial pressure on the remaining partners. They understandably fear the knock-on impacts of the campus closure.

East 15, one of the UK’s leading performing arts schools, is set to cut its Southend courses as a result of the closure. Students training with East 15 contribute to the cultural character of the city long after they have graduated, providing Southend with links to arts and entertainment industries further afield. I share residents’ pride in the success of talented Southend East 15 alumni, such as the comedian Maisie Adam. There are also significant concerns that the suggestion that 800 students can relocate to the university’s main campus in Colchester has been overstated. What’s more, following dialogue with staff and students, the suggestion that 200 students will be unable to complete their courses at all appears to be an underestimation.

This is simply not good enough. I am working with the leader of Southend council, Councillor Daniel Cowan, and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West and Leigh (David Burton-Sampson) to ensure that if an alternative provider can be found for courses not available in Colchester, students will be able to complete their studies in Southend. Can the Minister provide any reassurance to these students, who rightly feel confused and concerned about the future of their studies?

While questions remain unanswered about the university’s decision making and communication in the lead-up to the announcement, the planned closure is not an isolated event but a devastating symptom of 14 years of under-investment in higher education by the previous Conservative Government, which left universities and colleges across the country struggling to stay afloat. That Government slashed direct teaching grants for universities, making tuition fees the primary source of income for institutions. At the same time, they capped tuition fees, leading to an unsustainable business model that saw income tied to an ever-increasing number of enrolled students. The impact of that cannot be ignored.

Elsewhere in the UK, the University of Nottingham is planning for job losses of 350 staff members, the University of Strathclyde is looking for £35 million in savings, and the University of Edinburgh is set to move towards a sweep of compulsory redundancies.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am devastated to hear of the situation in Southend. In York, financial pressures are also prevalent. It is very clear that the financial model is failing. This is impacted by not only the resourcing that universities are able to generate but the change to international student visas. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government need to undertake a complete review of higher education funding and ensure that the model works, in order to invest not only in education but in our local economy?

[Mr Alaba]

Yes, I do agree. We need to look at the business model and make sure that it is sustainable, certainly when it comes to higher education, which is a huge and significant asset of our country. We need to future-proof it, so I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments.

Oral Answers to Questions

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Commons Chamber

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I met people from my regional adoption agency just last Thursday—I thank them and all their partners for their excellent work—who raised the adoption and special guardianship support fund, recognising that the quantum in resource is not there and that the demand is so high. Will the Minister meet the all-party parliamentary group on adoption and permanence to talk about the future of the fund and work with people who have lived experience to ensure that we get it right in the future?

[Josh MacAlister]

I know that my hon. Friend has been a long-standing campaigner and champion for these issues. When I was doing the independent review of children’s social care, she was a powerful voice advocating for support for adopters, and has continued to be one. I will gladly speak to and meet the all-party parliamentary group.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh MacAlister]

As I have previously said to the House, it is really important that we get the policy regarding special educational needs and the future of the schools system in exactly the right place. We are getting there, and very soon I will be able to share an update on those projects. I would be happy to meet the hon. Member in the near future.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

City of York council has gone from “requires improvement” to “outstanding” in all areas due to the innovation it is driving. In particular, it has been working on halving the number of children in social care, ending the use of agency workers and setting up a SEND hub. The director of children’s social care would like the Secretary of State to visit. Will she come to York and see what we are doing?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I was recently in York with our hon. Friend the Member for York Outer (Mr Charters), but I would be delighted to return and to talk about the brilliant progress that the council has been making in those important areas.

Care Leavers

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Monday 3rd November 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sally Jameson]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. I have not touched on this in my speech, but the number of people not in education, employment or training in the care leaver population is higher than the average. That is a fact that we need to take incredibly seriously, because those people deserve to have the same ambitions for their future as everyone else and to be able to realise their full potential. I am sorry to say that just is not happening at the minute, and it is the job of the Government to make sure it does.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

My hon. Friend is making a fantastic speech. Tomorrow I will be hosting York’s director of children’s services here in Parliament to talk about York’s care journey, which has been phenomenal. It has enabled care leavers to co-produce services and to chair many committees. Does she agree that that is an exemplar that can enable young people not only to gain confidence and experience but to direct their future?

[Sally Jameson]

I agree. My hon. Friend’s anecdote and those from colleagues across the House show that there are many examples of good practice across councils and authorities around the country, but it is important to weave it all together to ensure that we have a national strategy and support package so that every care leaver knows what to expect and can access it. Because so many of them have experienced hardship and trauma in their young lives, they probably have—more than most—the drive, resilience and determination to overcome the obstacles ahead, but we need to recognise that the system is stacked against them.

Support and policy in this area are often not what grab the headlines. They are not on all the election leaflets and do not feature in the polls, but if we in Parliament, regardless of politics, cannot protect and improve the outcomes for this most vulnerable group of young adults in our country, we have failed. The Government have the opportunity to let these young people rise as themselves and fulfil their ambitions, so let’s take it.

Educational Assessment System Reform

Rachael Maskell Excerpts

Wednesday 15th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Ind)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing today’s debate.

The assessment system is so broken that it is breaking our young people. It shows that those who can pass exams do well and those who cannot do not do so well. It assesses what people cannot recall or pull together as opposed to emphasising their strengths and building on their knowledge base, skills and talents. I have long researched this issue and believe it is time for the Government to be bold and welcome this review. The level of mental health issues, stress, trauma and anxiety among our young people is unsustainable. We have to change course. That is why I support the recommendation to scrap the SATs assessments, which place such pressure on our young people.

There are other forms of assessment that can continue to map a child’s journey. Assessment should be a continual process for educators, to stretch their pupils and ensure that students can move on to the next stage of their learning. That is what we should do: enable teachers to use their professional skills to maximise a child’s learning journey, stretch their creativity and give them a hunger to explore curiosity and critical thinking—the skills that are so needed in our economy today and which employers often say are so lacking among new starters.

Every child learns differently so the way they are assessed should reflect that diversity so that the fullness of their learning journey can be reflected in the assessments. I hope that we adopt a much more comprehensive form of assessment, in which we look at the diversity of how children express themselves. That should also be ongoing: people who can cram for exams have an advantage over those who process information and apply skills in very different ways. I say again in this Chamber that I recommend listening to the work of Sir Ken Robinson, which highlights how the education and assessment system must change.

Scrap the SATs. We do not need them in our education system. It is not right that young children should be so stressed. I have a challenge for the Government around GCSEs, given that children do not leave school any more. We need to think about how we prepare our young people for the next stages of life, showing that they have proficiency in their learning and encouraging children to stay with and enjoy their learning. If we are to prepare people for the rest of their lives, when they will not continue to sit exams, let us think about portfolios of assignments—learning journals and project work that reflects the reality of the society that we live in. Let us enable people to have those portfolios that they can use as evidence. That would involve the skills needed and mean we could assess better through a modulated system.

--- Later in debate ---

[Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell.

Before being elected, I spent nearly two decades as a teacher. I know all too well the realities of working in a system that prioritises teaching to the test at the expense of a creative curriculum, broader educational experiences and, most importantly, pupil wellbeing.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for education, I recently led an inquiry into the loss of love of learning. It found that current assessment practices have a significant impact on students’ engagement with, and attitudes towards, learning. One submission highlighted that a system which frames learning through a lens of student deficit rather than progress ultimately ends up demotivating learners and narrowing their sense of possibility. When education is reduced to a means of securing exam results, we lose the intrinsic joy and value of learning itself.

One of the most powerful moments during the inquiry came when a group of primary school children from Wales visited Parliament to give evidence. They were genuinely surprised and, frankly, horrified to learn about the pressure and stress their peers in England face when preparing for SATs—and they were right to be shocked. In England, SATs preparation dominates much of the year 6 curriculum, leaving little room for creativity, exploration or deeper understanding.

Research from More Than a Score found that over three quarters of parents believe that SATs have a detrimental impact on their child’s mental health. More than a third reported that their children were not sleeping properly in the run-up to the exams. Of course, that pressure does not end in primary school. GCSEs and A-levels occupy multiple years of a young person’s life and subject them to immense stress.

According to YoungMinds, pupils sitting their exams last summer reported elevated levels of anxiety, self-harm and even suicidal thoughts. Current systems also disproportionately disadvantage pupils with special educational needs and disabilities—or additional learning needs, as they are known in Wales—as well as those experiencing mental health issues or growing up in a socioeconomically disadvantaged circumstance.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for what the hon. Member is saying. As well as widening inequality through the current assessment system, which we know occurs, does he not agree that it also stifles social mobility, holding many young people back from the opportunities they could have?

[Steve Witherden]

Yes, I agree 100%.

In 2025, more than 75% of pupils with SEND and over 90% of those with an education, health and care plan did not meet expected standards in their end-of-primary SATs. Many carry that label of failure into secondary school before they have even had the chance to flourish. As someone who is dyslexic, dyscalculic and was functionally illiterate until the age of 11, I know what it feels like to struggle within a system not designed for people like me.

Teachers in schools serving deprived communities consistently report higher levels of pupil anxiety and disengagement related to SATs, compared with their counterparts in more affluent areas. The current high-stakes, one-size-fits-all model is not only outdated; it actively perpetuates inequality. Like Wales, England should abolish SATs. They damage children’s mental health, impose unnecessary stress at a formative age and fail to serve as reliable indicators of pupil or school performance.

At GCSE and A-level, we must reduce our dependence on high-stakes, end-of-course exams or on-demand online assessments, which give pupils—particularly those who struggle under timed conditions—greater opportunity to succeed. For far too long, education policy has been shaped by an obsession with measurable outcomes, too often at the expense of the very learners who most need our support.

I look forward to the final report of the curriculum and assessment review and urge the Government to respond with both ambition and compassion. Let us move beyond high-stakes learning, reduce anxiety in our classrooms, and above all, restore joy, creativity and a love of learning.

--- Later in debate ---

[Georgia Gould]

One of the really damning statistics is how many young people are not in education, employment or training at the end of the education system. We cannot afford to leave any child behind. Every child needs the best start and to achieve at school. That is what this Government are focused on.

[Rachael Maskell]

Will the Minister look at how young people can develop a portfolio around their learning as you would with professional development as an adult and in employment, so that they can map that journey and use it as part of the assessment portfolio that they could gather as they move through their education?

[Georgia Gould]

The Government are absolutely committed to high standards in English and math and the core learning that young people have, but we also want to see young people have a broad experience at school. I have heard the passion of so many hon. Members talking about the arts. I am a former leader of Camden council, where we heavily invested in the arts to make sure that every pupil had access to learning an instrument and the power that brings. We heard about the collaboration and the joy that the arts bring, and the need to ensure that they are taught well and to a high standard. So, I am absolutely committed to that breadth of education and to making sure that that goes through the education system.

Before I talk about assessment, which is the main topic of discussion today, I want to stress that I hear the depth of concern about young people’s mental health—not just from Members here today, but from the young people that I speak to, who talk about the anxiety and stress of being a teenager and the pressures of the huge amount of information that they are getting, and say that we need to address that as a Government.

It is troubling to see any young person struggle with their wellbeing. It can impact every aspect of a young person’s life, from their relationships and confidence to their ability to learn and thrive in school, as we have heard today. Too many young people have struggled to access the support they need and therefore ended up with the kind of deep anxiety and unacceptable mental health concerns that we have heard about when they face challenges, such as when exams are coming up. We need to make sure that we have the right mental health support for young people when they face challenges.

We want to make sure that help is there early by providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school and expanding mental health support teams. We estimate that 60% of pupils in schools and further education will be covered by a mental health support team by April 2026—up from 52% in April 2025. Our goal is for all pupils to have access to mental health support in school by 2029-30. To support education staff, my Department provides a range of guidance and practical resources on promoting and supporting pupils’ mental health and wellbeing. Across the system, we are recruiting 8,500 new mental health support staff to support both children and adults. We also recognise how important it is to listen to young people to understand their experiences and make sure that the support that we offer truly meets their needs.

Turning to assessment, it is important to state that well-designed assessments play a critical role in supporting young people to develop and demonstrate their achievement at school. As the curriculum and assessment review interim report states:

“Effective assessment is a crucial component of a high performing education system.”

Members will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt the conclusions and final recommendations of the review while it is still in progress. The review’s final report is due to be published in the coming weeks, at which point the Government will respond on the issues of assessment and accountability that Members have raised.

I want to address some of the concerns that have been raised this afternoon and give reassurance that many of these issues are being looked at carefully in the review. Starting with concerns about primary assessments, including SATs, these assessments help to make sure that pupils are building the core knowledge and skills they need to succeed as they transition to secondary school and throughout their lives. SATs are carefully developed to ensure that they are accessible, but I recognise that the experience can feel stressful for some young people, as we have heard today.

Schools should not be overpreparing children for these assessments and we must be mindful of the pressure that they can have on children. They should not lead to the kinds of stories that we heard today of children feeling that they had to give up different activities because of the stress and pressure they were feeling. It is incumbent on schools to ensure that young people have the skills and knowledge that they need, but also to continue to provide breadth. Members will know that the changes to Ofsted’s accountability make it clear that we want to see a wider focus on inclusion as well as a focus on attainment.