Caroline Voaden MP: speeches

421 published records · newest first.

Speeches

25 Nov 2025 · English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill · Hansard source
More
New clause 10, which I tabled, would require the Secretary of State to re-establish the community ownership fund, to which strategic authorities can apply for funding. We have heard from lots of Members in the House today about the value of their local community-owned businesses. Community-owned spaces are of immense economic and social value to their local area. Businesses across the country under the community ownership model are defying the odds, when small businesses in retail and hospitality in particular are struggling to survive. According to Plunkett UK—I commend its work in this area—business survival rates for community businesses remain exceptional, with a five-year survival rate of 97%. That is radically higher than the 39% survival rate of private small and medium enterprises over the same period. These thriving local enterprises reinvest back into their communities, creating a positive cycle. They also provide exponential benefits to local areas and the people who live there. They tend to source goods and services locally, creating a circular economy in the places where they exist. They support charitable activity, provide fundraising for local causes and improve the aesthetics of our towns and villages through gardening initiatives, improving the quality of our green spaces, encouraging more people to get outdoors and improving arts and culture. From pubs and shops to community centres and hubs, these spaces are the pillars of their communities, bringing people together and nurturing a shared pride in their town or village. They are the difference between a bunch of houses and a genuine community. At a time when community cohesion is frayed, division is commonplace and we are being pulled apart by dangerous individuals seeking to widen the cracks that are showing in our society, these community spaces offer a way to reunite communities. Through something as simple as providing a place for people to meet and talk to each other, community spaces combat this increase in division with social interaction, enabling communities to come together to celebrate where they live. Community-owned spaces provide a wide array of volunteering opportunities, employing more than 20,000 volunteers across this country, from young people right through to older people. In a recent survey by Plunkett, 58% of these businesses stated that older people benefit most from their presence. In rural areas such as South Devon, that is especially important. Isolation can happen when people live far from neighbours in rural areas, and in many ways these places help to strengthen the very fabric of rural life for those people. It is not easy for a community to buy a building or space that is at risk of closure or has been left unused. That is why the community ownership fund is vital, as Government funding is desperately needed to enable a sustained increase in community ownership. A community ownership fund would develop a larger pipeline of start-up groups and build the capacity and confidence of those groups to progress to the trading stage. If it were reopened, it would have a transformational impact by enabling the spread of community spaces and the extensive benefits they bring. In the three years that the community ownership fund was in place, it saved thousands of cherished community sites at risk of closure. Thanks to the fund, community groups could generate income, build financial sustainability and strengthen community ties. It is the Government’s mission to double the size of the co-operative sector, as set out in their manifesto. It is time, therefore, for them to correct their mistake, to fulfil their promise and to seize the opportunity that this Bill presents by backing my new clause 10 and reopening the community ownership fund.
24 Nov 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Obligations · Hansard source
More
We all agree on the need to get aid urgently into Gaza now. Research from famine in world war two shows the lasting impact of famine, even on unborn foetuses; it cannot later be erased or reversed. Famine can also lead to cardiovascular disease and diabetes. Does the hon. Member agree that Israel must allow the unrestricted passage of aid not just to mitigate the devastation that we see now, but to prevent the severe consequences that will stretch long into the future?
19 Nov 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
Q2. Given the Government’s desire to improve our children’s educational outcomes and wellbeing, they are ignoring the elephant in the room. This morning I hosted a powerful roundtable with three secondary headteachers who spoke about the transformational effect that a complete ban on smartphones in their schools had had—improved behaviour, increased focus, far fewer safeguarding issues, and, most importantly, happier children. But for them the ban has been hard won, and it has sunk a huge amount of time. Will the Prime Minister tell me, and the thousands of headteachers out there who are crying out for this change, why his Government will not back them with a ban on smartphones in schools?
12 Nov 2025 · SEND Provision: Kent · Hansard source
More
As far as I am aware, we have done.
12 Nov 2025 · SEND Provision: Kent · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir John. I thank the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this debate. He outlined some horrific stories of neglect and appalling treatment of children with SEND. I am not from Kent—I am from Devon—but all I can say is that I relate. We hear exactly the same horror stories in Devon, and I am sure right across the country it is absolutely shocking. Children with special educational needs and disabilities and their families are the most vulnerable in our society. When these children do not get the support that they need, they will be less likely to be able to work and participate fully in society in later life, not to mention the issues that they face in the moment. Not only is providing the right support for these children vital for them, their families and their education, but it creates long-term economic benefits. It is not just economically right, though; it is morally right that we act to ensure that children with SEND have the best life chances both in Kent and across the country. More than 20,000 children in Kent have an EHCP. Alongside all other local authorities, Kent has statutory duties to meet EHCP deadlines and offer provision, but it is facing rising demand and declining resources. Under the previous Conservative administration, SEND in Kent was put into special measures after it was identified that urgent action was needed to improve services: just 13% of EHCPs were completed within the statutory 20-week deadline in the year to March 2024. When the county was in special measures, however, there were some improvements: the provision of EHCPs by the deadline went up to 65%. As a result of the improvements, Kent was taken out of special measures, but my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mike Martin) is calling for Kent to remain in special measures to allow the improvements to continue. Even during the period of improvement, quantity did not equal quality. As other Members have said, there has been a litany of mistakes on some of the EHCPs, including the incorrect names of schools, schools that do not exist, schools that are not approved, schools that do not have funding, incorrect needs and spelling mistakes—really basic errors. As a result, Kent county council received more than 500 complaints mentioning EHCPs in the year to July 2025. When families complain, they are often told to go to a tribunal. Kent county council spent close to £2.2 million fighting parents in tribunals from 2021 to 2024—more than double any other county council. Families see this use of tribunals as a tactic to try to get them to give up seeking appropriate support for their children, and unsurprisingly, the tactic often works, because the tribunals are utterly gruelling, as we in Devon know as well. Families and children spend months preparing for them, the emotional toll is enormous and it sometimes costs as much as £8,000 to get the required legal advice. All the while, the child is not receiving the special education that their EHCP says they require, and delays sometimes stretch to more than a year. Most of these parents know that this is the education their children need. They know they are going to win, but they are forced to jump through hoops, on top of what they are already coping with, as parents of children with special needs and disabilities. It is truly appalling. The last time my hon. Friend the Member for Tunbridge Wells—who is on paternity leave, so unfortunately cannot be with us today—spoke about this issue in this place, he raised the case of his constituent Ella, who has cerebral palsy and is nine years old. Her father told my hon. Friend about how, when the family complained that her EHCP had not been updated to meet her needs when she moved from nursery to school, and that their application for a placement at a specialist school was rejected with no consultation, they were told on both occasions to go to tribunal. Faced with no other option, Ella’s family opted to go to tribunal. They have now been given a date in May 2026, leaving them stuck for more than a year without a sufficient EHCP to meet Ella’s needs. Between 2021 and 2024, 98% of SEND tribunals in Kent were successful for the parents, so it is clear that if the parents have the money, time and emotional bandwidth, they can go to tribunal and will be successful, albeit after a wait. However, many parents decide that they are not able, either financially or emotionally, to put themselves through that arduous process, and the same is true nationally. The parents who win that process are often those who are more able to advocate for themselves and their children, rather than those who are less able to do so. Local authorities lose nearly all the cases, wasting more than £70 million annually—£70 million that could be spent on supporting children, rather than fighting unnecessary legal battles. Since Reform took over Kent county council, the situation has only got worse. Colleagues at the council report that Reform councillors are acting like clowns in a circus. Just six months after being elected, eight of them have either been suspended or expelled from their posts. It seems that Reform cannot run a bath, let alone a county council on which more than 1 million people rely. The chaos is only making the situation worse for vulnerable children with SEND, who need a council that will give them support. The June meeting on children, young people and education was postponed indefinitely, pushing back any support that might be provided. That was just one of a plethora of committee meetings, cabinet meetings and sub-committees that the incompetent Reform administration in Kent has cancelled because it is unable to deliver government. Reform is simply unable to grapple with a crisis of this magnitude and scale. Worse, Reform is actively proposing withdrawing support from families with children with SEND. The hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) has suggested removing home-to-school transport funding from some families. He said: “There are things called parents” for taking children to school, although he admitted some exceptions could be made for special needs students. Kent faces the largest bill of any council in England for providing home-to-school transport for SEND students at £68 million last year—the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) raised that issue. The plan by the hon. Member for Clacton to cut school transport would be a disaster for parents who do not have the time or money to drive their children on hours-long round trips to special schools miles away, or might be driving other children in the opposite direction or trying to get to work. He would know this if he ever took the time to speak to the families struggling with this problem. One Reform councillor in Cambridgeshire showed the party’s true disregard for supporting vulnerable young people when he recently described some children in care as “downright evil”. When given the opportunity to condemn those comments in Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier today, the hon. Member for Clacton refused. Many children in care have special educational needs and disabilities. Reform’s blaming of young people who need our support shows that it is simply not fit to deliver for children with SEND in Kent and across the country. It is welcome that the Government now recognise that the system needs fundamental change, but their decision to delay the overhaul of SEND provision in England until 2026 is a betrayal of every child with SEND and their families who are looking for better solutions. To kick the can down the road could be an admission that the Government do not have a sense of urgency or that they are not sure what the solution is, but we do need urgent action. Owing to the delay, the detail of the Government’s plan remains unclear. Many families are worried that EHCPs will be scrapped or scaled back, with no idea yet of what could replace them. The uncertainty is understandably causing anxiety among parents who see the documents as the only way to secure the support that their child needs. The hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) spoke of the importance of some kind of legal protection around this support for families. The Lib Dems introduced EHCPs in coalition—we are very proud of that. Before that, we had statements. If EHCPs are to be scrapped, families will still need some kind of statement of need to access services. Ultimately, the Government have to focus on the best way to meet needs and outcomes and not just focus on cost saving. As the Government are reviewing special educational needs and disabilities, it is important that the voices of children and families are heard. They see the system from the inside and experience its shortcomings. I know the Minister has met many families and campaigners and is listening. After hearing those voices, the Liberal Democrats are also calling on the Government to commit to genuine change of the SEND system. We call for the Government’s White Paper next year to meet our five principles for SEND reform. Alongside putting children and families first, we call on the Government to boost special capacity and improve mainstream provision by building more specialist schools and investing in proper support in mainstream settings. The hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe talked about some very successful interventions elsewhere in the country. Models that do not cost huge amounts of money but offer a creative way of looking at the issue should definitely be explored and rolled out widely. Early intervention must be improved and delays reduced, and schools need to be resourced to accept children with SEND, with staff trained in integrated teaching and care. To achieve that, funding will be required. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to cap the profits of private equity firms providing SEND provision at 8% to ensure that money is channelled back into the SEND system and not into the pockets of shareholders. We also call on the Government to provide support to any child whose needs exceed a specified cost threshold to ensure that no child is left behind. The Liberal Democrats would welcome the Government working with us on a cross-party basis to ensure that reforms are delivered quickly. It is vital we get this right. Every child has the right, irrespective of postcode, background or need, to thrive.
12 Nov 2025 · SEND Provision: Kent · Hansard source
More
I think my office might already have done that. I will check.
11 Nov 2025 · Topical Questions · Hansard source
More
Sexual exploitation is being perpetrated on an industrial scale by pimping websites, which currently enjoy near-total legal impunity, moving sexual exploitation off the street and into locations like flats and hotels, where outreach is harder and the coercion of vulnerable women can thrive. Given that advertising prostitution in a phone box was made illegal 25 years ago, can the Government explain why they are yet to outlaw the same advertising online?
11 Nov 2025 · Alcohol Duty: UK Wine Sector · Hansard source
More
Does my hon. Friend agree that this policy directly hits the small independent wine importers, such as The Wine Loft in Brixham? It sells many different kinds of wine, but it does not have the power of Sainsbury’s or Majestic. It does not have a whole department to manage it and bring in large quantities of the same wine.
5 Nov 2025 · Curriculum and Assessment Review · Hansard source
More
We welcome the Government’s ambition to see arts and outdoor enrichment education included at the heart of the school curriculum, and we have some phenomenal outdoor ed going on in South Devon. We have long called for a broadened EBacc including arts subjects, but without clear incentives to encourage or require their inclusion, why will schools prioritise these experiences for pupils when they are under already severe budgetary pressure from the Government’s many unfunded commitments?
5 Nov 2025 · Conflict in Sudan · Hansard source
More
Given the horrendous, apocalyptic scenes we are seeing in Sudan, and the fact that 25 million people are now estimated to be in acute hunger, does the Minister still think it was right for the Government to cut our overseas development aid budget? Can he commit to the House that the Government will increase it back to 0.5% of national income and use that funding to fund the UK’s response in Sudan, which is so desperately needed?
4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source
More
Nearly 100,000 jobs have been lost in hospitality since the last Budget. Does the hon. Member agree that if that number of jobs had been lost in the steel industry or a car plant, it would have been front-page news day after day for weeks on end? Yet almost nothing is said about the jobs lost in hospitality, because they are dispersed right across the country, so they are almost invisible. Actually, an enormous number of jobs have been lost.
4 Nov 2025 · Supporting High Streets · Hansard source
More
This debate has reminded me of the maiden speeches we heard last year. We have had a really good tour of the country, taking in Animal shops, fun palaces and all sorts of stuff. It has been great to talk about high streets, which are more than just shopping streets. They shape how people feel about where they live. When high streets are thriving, people take pride in their towns and feel a real sense of optimism about their area and, by extension, the country. When shops, cafés and pubs are closing, that optimism fades, leaving people discouraged and looking for change. If the Government want people to feel that their lives are improving and their communities are thriving, and if they want people to feel hopeful and optimistic, supporting the high street must be a priority. That will not only help our traders and shops survive, but help restore pride in our towns. It will ensure that people are invested in the future of their communities and, by extension, the country, rather than being drawn to alternative voices offering quick fixes. I hope that that will be an incentive for the Government to rethink those of their measures that have been hitting the high street. I am really proud to represent a constituency with fantastic high streets, including in Kingsbridge, Brixham, Modbury, Dartmouth, Salcombe and, of course, Totnes, which is widely praised for its unique high street, on which I was a trader in one of my past lives. As attractive as those streets are, in reality, all the traders are struggling. As many Members have said, the increase in national insurance contributions has hit those businesses hard. One small café in Brixham faces an extra £15,000 in national insurance costs this year. That is just unmanageable for a small café. I was told by a larger restaurant—part of a chain of 17 successful restaurants, which act as a magnet, bringing people to communities across south-west England—that the cost of the increases is equivalent to the money that would be spent opening a new restaurant, and opening a new restaurant would revitalise another town. That is so damaging. Not only is the NIC rise causing hardship, but the reduction in business rates relief from 75% to 40%, combined with the abolition of the cap, effectively leaves small businesses subsidising large chains. I am running out of time, but I would just like to add that eight pubs are closing every week, and nearly 100,000 hospitality jobs have been lost since the Budget. If that happened in any other industry, it would be headline news, but the Government seem oblivious to what is happening. We call on the Government to exempt hospitality SMEs from the employer national insurance contributions increase, and to consult on creating a new band, from £5,000, to reduce the cost of employing part-time and seasonal staff, who are absolutely vital to the hospitality industry.
4 Nov 2025 · Banking Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source
More
When Labour was in opposition, its shadow Economic Secretary, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq), welcomed measures to protect access to cash, but was concerned about the fact that they did “nothing to protect essential face-to-face banking services.” —[ Official Report , 26 June 2023; Vol. 735, c. 71.] Such services go beyond a banking hub, but they are now vanishing. While the Financial Conduct Authority is responsible for access to cash, it appears that there is no Government body overseeing access to face-to-face banking services. Does the Minister agree that new regulation is needed to support residents and businesses in rural areas, especially as banks will prevent customers from cashing cheques in post offices from January?
4 Nov 2025 · Banking Services: Rural Areas · Hansard source
More
2. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of access to banking services in rural areas.
29 Oct 2025 · Independent Lifeboats: Government Support · Hansard source
More
Hope Cove lifeboat station in my constituency is considering purchasing a new rescue boat, which could cost in excess of £220,000—a vast amount of money for such a small organisation. Does the hon. Member agree that a specific grant scheme should be introduced to help independent lifeboat stations with capital expenditure?
29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source
More
The hon. Member talks about redeploying funding so that it can be spread across the landscape to improve 16-to-19 education, but we are talking about 0.004% of the education budget. Does she think that the tiny amount of funding that goes into the IB would make any difference at all if it were spread across the entire education landscape?
29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source
More
Will the hon. Lady give way?
29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source
More
The Government obviously have good intentions about improving the standard of post 16-education; I have seen that for myself on the Education Committee, so I do not doubt their intentions. However, this decision feels like levelling down rather than levelling up. Does my hon. Friend agree that instead of removing the opportunity for students in state schools to study the IB, the Government should consider broadening it and helping other schools to offer this world-class qualification?
29 Oct 2025 · International Baccalaureate: Funding in State Schools · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) for bringing forward this debate. The international baccalaureate sets a global benchmark for education. It is trusted by universities, employers and educators worldwide as a mark of academic excellence. It equips young people with the skills they need for life, producing confident and well-rounded citizens. It therefore makes no sense for the Government to slash large programme uplift funding for the IB diploma programme—a deeply damaging and short-sighted move that will affect only 20 state schools that offer the IB. That funding makes it possible for state schools to deliver the IB programme, and removing it jeopardises access to the programme for state school students across England, entrenching even further the divide between state and private schools. That directly contradicts the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. The cut, worth just £2.5 million, as my hon. Friend the Member for Didcot and Wantage said, is a drop in the ocean for the DFE, given its £100 billion budget, but the impact on state schools and students currently taking or planning to take the IB is devastating. Why are the Government discouraging ambition and preventing social mobility to save such a comparatively small sum of money? I recently heard from Torquay Boys’ Grammar School, which is in the neighbouring constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) and is attended by many of my constituents. The school was shocked to learn that its large programme uplift funding would end with no prior warning, cutting £116,000 from its budget in 2026 and £90,000 in 2027. It warned that this was an irreversible change. Establishing the IB involves years of preparation and teacher training, something the school has been building up since 2009. Losing the IB would happen quickly and with no turning back, but the impact extends beyond that. Torquay Boys’ said that without the IB it could not sustain A-level language courses. Those usually have only four to five students per class, but the IB programme keeps 40 students learning languages at 16 to 18. The cut could therefore lead to the death of certain subjects altogether in some state schools. As a language graduate myself, this is something I care about deeply. We can all plainly see the damage that cutting our ties to our nearest neighbours on the European mainland has done. Effectively wiping out language learning in schools is yet another hammer blow to intercultural understanding and relationship building. We know that the IB is a pathway to top universities, apprenticeships and employment for young people in the state sector, so the cut is at direct odds with the Government’s pledge to increase the number of students pursuing further education. It provides a broad and balanced curriculum, including maths, science, humanities, arts and a language. This decision therefore also actively conflicts with the Government’s promise in opposition to deliver a “broad and bold” curriculum. Not every student is ready to limit their choices to three A-levels at 16 years old. The IB enables them to keep their options open for longer, ensuring they reach the right decision about what to go on to study later in life. Why are the Government taking a decision that actively narrows curriculums and limits skillsets? Why are they undertaking this hypocritical action that goes against their own commitments, missions and promises? And what do they seek to gain from a cut that will free up so little cash, but take away significant opportunities from ambitious state school students? Our education system should nurture every child’s full range of talents by embracing a broader curriculum rooted in curiosity, creativity and critical thinking. The Liberal Democrats want a system that supports aspiration and opens opportunity. We need a more diverse education system, not a more homogenised one. The Government must reverse this cut and go further. The upcoming curriculum review should draw on the success of the IB diploma programme so that more students can benefit from its rigorous and balanced approach. The UK should learn from international models like the IB, not shut them down.
29 Oct 2025 · Engagements · Hansard source
More
I recently met about 20 independent local traders in Totnes who are furious that the last bank in town will close in January and that Link has refused to consider a banking hub. My businesses and constituents—1,100 of them have signed a petition—deserve better. The Prime Minister just told the hon. Member for Blyth and Ashington (Ian Lavery) that a banking hub can be rolled out wherever a community needs one, so will he now back my campaign, ask his Ministers to write to Link and instruct it to grant a banking hub to Totnes, and review the eligibility of rural towns for such hubs so that we can keep our vital high streets alive?
28 Oct 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source
More
16. What diplomatic steps she is taking to help ensure that humanitarian aid can reach people in Gaza.
28 Oct 2025 · Gaza: Humanitarian Situation · Hansard source
More
The Norwegian Refugee Council says that, between 10 and 21 October, 99 requests by international NGOs to deliver aid to Gaza were rejected by Israel on the grounds that the organisations were “not authorised” to deliver humanitarian aid to Gaza, yet these trusted agencies have operated there for decades. Can the Minister tell the people of Gaza who are living in makeshift shelters, and who are hungry and thirsty, what the UK Government are actually doing to compel the Israeli authorities to immediately allow aid deliveries into Gaza?
27 Oct 2025 · Holidays During School Term Time · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for introducing this debate and setting out the issues, and I thank the more than 181,000 members of the public who signed the petition, 243 of whom are from my constituency. We know that being in school is the best way for children to reach their potential. Absence from school, especially when persistent—I will come back to that later in my speech—can impact children both academically and socially. Yet for some children, our system is designed in such a way that school itself can impact on their wellbeing. The petition that has brought us here today focuses specifically on absence due to holidays. It is clear that all Members here agree that downtime with family is important: a chance to rest, to spend time together without all the usual pressures, and just to be. I hope some lucky Members have fond memories of holiday trips to my constituency of South Devon. Research from the Department for Education that was published earlier this year highlighted that a pupil who attends 95% to 100% of the time is twice as likely to achieve English and Maths grade 5 than a pupil who attends 90% to 95% of the time, and 23 times more likely to do so than a pupil who attends less than half the time. Missing even 10% of school time can influence the grades a child is likely to achieve at GCSE. The default position should be that children attend school every day unless exceptional circumstances prevent it, and we must use all available means to encourage that. Deterrence through fines plays a role in that, but we are concerned about the current culture of reaching immediately for the fine lever. It has lost its impact, as many parents now factor fines into the cost of any term-time holiday they take, entrenching the divide between those who can afford it and those who cannot. Instead of using blanket fines, we would seek to reduce the pressure on local authorities and schools to issue fines for absence, and we would instead encourage a collaborative approach between schools and parents that builds trust and puts the child’s wider interests at the centre. That is key during times such as family illness or bereavement, as other Members have said. Holidays allow children to learn beyond the classroom and discover new passions, abilities and interests through new experiences and simply being in a different environment. For many families, organising a holiday when schools are closed is not a problem. However, for others, a holiday outside term time is simply not affordable. They cannot pay the enormously hiked holiday prices during high-demand periods. One of my constituents wrote to me that he had to pay £3,000 more to take his grandchildren away during the school holidays than during term time. These extortionate price hikes mean that families cannot afford to go away outside term time, and that unfairly robs children—mainly the children who would benefit most—of new and enriching experiences. Parents, carers and grandparents should not have to choose between shelling out thousands of pounds on the additional costs of a holiday outside term time and paying a fine. Instead, airlines and travel operators should stop taking advantage of families. Nearly doubling, or more, the price of the same holiday package from one day to the next is exploitative and completely out of line with any surge in demand, as the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) so perfectly illustrated. However, the question of when people can afford to go on holiday is indicative of the wider issue that school absence is closely tied to a family’s financial situation. In the 2024-25 school year, the absence rate for those who were eligible for free school meals was 10.3%. Those who were not eligible were absent nearly half as much, at 5.2%. The Liberal Democrats are pleased that the Government have recognised that and are taking steps to resolve it. The roll-out of free breakfast clubs to every state primary school in England and the adoption of the much-loved Liberal Democrat policy of extending free school meal eligibility to children in England whose families claim universal credit will help to address persistent absence. The Government’s provision of those meals and the new breakfast clubs indicate that they acknowledge the correlation between a family’s finances and a child’s attendance. However, I ask the Minister what the Government have done to investigate and relieve holiday-related financial burdens for the children and families that need it most. Aside from the financial concerns, we should acknowledge that term dates are decided in part by schools, which could therefore be encouraged to organise those dates so that the largest number of families in their communities can benefit from school holidays. For example, some schools might want to shorten the Christmas holiday so that they can offer other holidays for other religious festivals. That would mean that members of other communities would not face fines if they wanted to celebrate together as a family. Being flexible with inset and training days can also enable parents to spend time with children outside school at cheaper times of the year. In areas such as mine, more flexibility would enable families that run tourism and hospitality businesses to have a holiday, which they cannot take in peak seasons. I turn to the more worrying situation with persistent absences. Since the pandemic, absence from school has become a national crisis, which does significant damage to children’s development and impacts their life chances. The general absence rate in the last academic year was still 2% higher than the rates recorded during the six years before the pandemic, and persistent absence—defined as missing 10% of lessons or more in a year—remained well above the pre-pandemic rate of 10.5%, at a worrying 17.6% in the last academic year. In many cases, holidays and recreation are not the main reason for parents taking their children out of school; rather, children are forced out of the system by factors outside their control. We see persistent absence from pupils with SEND, young carers and those with mental health conditions. The situation with children with SEND is well illustrated in my constituency: across Devon, the rates of school absence for those with SEND support and those with education, health and care plans have nearly doubled, from 6% and 7.5% respectively in 2016-17 to 11.2% and 13.75% in the last academic year. Nationally, more than 72,000 children with SEND missed half their lessons in the last academic school year—an increase of nearly 9,000, compared with the previous year. That is a direct consequence of inadequate SEND provision and EHCP funding. After years of neglect under the Conservative Government, the system is failing to deliver the outcome that SEND children deserve, pushing them out of school. We must address the underlying causes of absence constructively, not punitively. No parent should be fined if their child is unable to attend school because of inadequate SEND provision, and no child should be punished for being late because they have the responsibility of caring for a loved one at home. The Liberal Democrats have long called for measures that will help to encourage all those children back into the classroom, including having a qualified mental health professional in every primary and secondary school, and giving local authorities extra funding to reduce the amount that schools have to pay towards the cost of EHCPs. The central point is that we must first understand why a child is not attending school, whether it is the unaffordability of holidays outside term time, SEND, young caring responsibilities, religious holidays, bereavement or other factors. That understanding must be the starting point before any further action is taken. The solution to this petition and to school absence more generally is not to compel children to attend school with the threat of punishment, but to ensure that they are genuinely able to attend. We should not force them to learn, but enable them, whether by tackling the exploitative pricing structures of travel companies and airlines or removing structural barriers to regular attendance for SEND children, disadvantaged students and carers. We must think in a much bigger way about how to tackle these issues. Fining parents should be a last resort, and should be only one of a suite of options for local authorities and schools to work with parents and encourage the best attendance possible for all our children.
15 Oct 2025 · Educational Assessment System Reform · Hansard source
More
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Josh Dean) on securing this important debate. He spoke passionately about the subject. Although I have no doubt that his personal recollections of education are more recent than my own, I not long ago lived through the trauma of summer exam season vicariously through both my daughters, and I am glad that is behind us now. The effect of exams on the mental health of our children and young people is clear. The hon. Member eloquently laid out that problem and showed that other respectable education systems have found a way to minimise exam time. It is possible to do that, and incumbent on us to look at doing so. Education is about so much more than the grades a child receives. It is about empowering every child to become the best they can be, ensuring they leave school equipped with the life skills, confidence and resilience they need, to lead happy, healthy and successful lives, whatever path they choose. Education is about so much more than teaching to the test. It should be about opening minds and lighting a spark, as the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) described so passionately. As the hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) said, social and emotional development is also vital, and as important as academic achievement. At the heart of all this is ensuring that school is enjoyable. Most of us remember that one teacher who inspired us, who turned the light on and sparked a love of something, the one thing we did not mind getting up for in the morning. I saw a perfect example of that during a recent visit to Stokenham primary school in my constituency. There is a forest school behind the school buildings where children learn through exploring their natural environment in a wonderful wooded area, beautifully demonstrating the importance of learning beyond the classroom, and the creative ways we can bring education alive. That is truly the highlight of the week for all the kids. It might also be music, drama, art or sport, textiles, food tech or woodwork. A holistic approach to education is vital because it nurtures social and creative skills that are just as important as the core subjects of English and maths. If a narrow approach to the curriculum is pursued, enriching experiences such as those risk being pushed to the bottom of the pile. Lessons that foster interpersonal, creative and emotional skills have their place alongside traditional subjects that are measured in exams. Music has been shown to improve performance in maths, helping children to recognise patterns and sequences, improving memory and recall, as I am sure the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) will agree. Standardised testing remains important. Exams play a vital role in maintaining high educational standards and provide a clear, objective measure of achievement. As the Sutton Trust highlights, anonymous, externally marked exams help to level the playing field for pupils from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. They act as a crucial equaliser for students who may not have support at home for coursework, and they are less susceptible to the biases that can arise in teacher assessments or oral exams. We heard passionate speeches from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and other Members that SATs at 11 should not be included in standardised testing. As the Government’s interim report recognises, the current one-size-fits-all approach is letting down some students. Pupils start sitting exams from the age of 11, and their experience is clear: the system puts enormous pressure on our young people and their mental health. We must take the opportunity to think about how we assess their ability. That is clearly demonstrated in the surge in pupils resitting GCSE English and maths. This year, just under 400,000 students resat those subjects, accounting for 23% of all GCSE entries. The current system that pushes young people to resit the assessments quickly after their first attempt is flawed. Over-16s are caught in a cycle of repeated resits, with the number of 18-year-olds resitting those subjects rising by nearly 20% from last year. Those students risk falling into a dispiriting cycle, feeling they have failed because they cannot pass the exam and being forced to redo it again and again. Understandably, that has a detrimental impact on their mental health, with repeated resits and a rigid assessment system contributing to heightened anxiety and stress. Alongside increasing support for those pupils to get through their English and maths, we must look at the viability of an alternative functional assessment that better fits ability. We must also reconsider how certain other subjects are assessed in the first place. Evey child will want to pursue their own path, and in certain subjects such as those that are creative, technical and vocational, exams may not be the solution. Our assessment system must reflect that diversity and recognise the many ways in which children can best demonstrate their learning. As the hon. Member for York Central and my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella) said, we all learn differently, so why assess in just one way? We also need to be mindful that one in every five students has special educational needs. As the Government’s interim report notes, the assessment system needs to be more inclusive, and that inclusivity must extend to those with higher levels of SEND, as highlighted by both the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade). Currently, only 24% of children with SEND meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with 62% nationally. That imbalance is unacceptable, and we must work hard to ensure that it is rectified. Children with SEND deserve the same opportunities to succeed as their peers, and the assessment system must reflect their specific needs, enabling them to progress and thrive in their education, rather than be weighed down by exams that fail to accommodate their abilities. We must be creative in finding other ways to assess ability. My hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance), who has done valuable work on education for pupils with neurodivergence, spoke passionately about this, and I commend him for his work on the subject. We also need to think outside the box when it comes to subjects such as music, drama, art and sports. These subjects develop crucial creative and emotional skills, yet they are not always best assessed through exams. They are the subjects that bring joy to education and transform schools into places where children are genuinely excited to learn. As the parent of a daughter who now works as a professional costume maker, I have seen the joy and passion that a creative career choice can bring. Given the love that people have for films, it is no less valid than a career in law, medicine, finance, or, dare I say it, politics. All too often, however, such subjects are being squeezed out of our timetables due to budget cuts, teacher shortages and a curriculum that is often narrowed prematurely as schools are forced to focus on assessment. That is unfair, disproportionately affecting pupils from poorer backgrounds who do not otherwise have access to extracurricular activities to make up for the gaps. As a rural MP, I will say that the problem is exacerbated in rural constituencies, where students may not be able to attend after-school clubs if their only way to get home is on the 3.30 pm school bus. Limited or costly transport options should never be a barrier to creativity and involvement in sports. We must protect, not diminish, those subjects and ensure that every learner has the chance to excel on whatever path they choose. The Liberal Democrats want children to be able to thrive in a system that allows them to play to their strengths and supports them in their weaknesses, a system that empowers children, where school is a joyful place that encourages children to follow their passions and get excited about their future. The Government’s interim report says that the system is broadly working well, and that exams can be an effective way to assess progress, but it is clear that a one-size-fits-all approach does not work for every pathway, which is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for an assessment system that reflects the diversity of young people’s needs, especially for those with special educational needs. Holistic teaching and creative subjects have their rightful place in our curriculum, and pupils’ choices should not be narrowed too early to focus solely on examined subjects. Children deserve an exam system that offers choice and equips them with the skills they need, no matter which path they choose to follow. We must find a more balanced approach to assessment: a way to truly assess the gifts and talents that all young people have—because they all do. A system that makes them start to feel like a failure at 11 is just wrong. We owe it to our children to do better and, as the hon. Member for Corby and East Northamptonshire (Lee Barron) said, lift them up, not weigh them down. I urge the Minister to take this opportunity to seriously consider broadening our curriculum, expanding the provision of extracurricular activities, and developing an ambitious assessment system that ensures young people leave school equipped with the skills, confidence and opportunity to succeed.
13 Oct 2025 · Education Committee · Hansard source
More
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for her statement. As part of the evidence we gathered, we went to Ontario to see its inclusive education system, and I am sure I was not alone in finding that one of the bits of evidence that made the most impression. A couple of things stood out. Ontario focuses on communication from kindergarten, because social integration is vital for children to thrive. Parents there do not have to fight, because dialogue works better. Families are listened to and their trauma acknowledged. All behaviour is a form of communication; we have to understand what these children are trying to tell us. Does the Chair of the Committee agree that there is so much we can do to transform the education we offer to children with SEND that does not need to cost huge amounts of money? It just requires a radical shift in attitude, and that starts with—

Published records only — not a full account of an MP’s work. How we work →