(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered e-petition 700047 relating to holidays during school term time.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I am privileged to open today’s debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. I thank not only Natalie Elliott, the creator of the petition, but the 181,598 signatories who have made today’s debate possible. I also thank the Petitions Committee team for their work, including the comprehensive programme of engagement they organised in advance of today’s debate. I launched my own public consultation on this issue and have received thousands of responses, and I will try to reflect the views of those I have been lucky enough to have interacted with in preparing for the debate.
Let me start by laying out the key frustration of the people who signed the petition. Holidays are expensive, and as we all know their price jumps hugely during typical holiday seasons. Unfortunately, market forces mean that many families simply cannot afford a holiday during school breaks. One parent from Keighley told me that she was quoted £1,000 more per person for a February half-term holiday than for one the following week, meaning an identical family holiday would cost thousands of pounds more simply because it was taken during school holidays. This view was reflected by so many families who feel they are being priced out by what is clearly predatory pricing from holiday companies.
It is worth pausing to seriously consider the value of a holiday. Holidays are not just frivolity; big or small, near or far, they provide a crucial few days for family members to breathe, spend time with one other and fortify themselves against the next 12 months of work and school. That is even more valuable now that many families have two working parents. Holidays are also a vital part of expanding a child’s horizons. There is an important sentiment that we should go away from home not just to see how we might improve our wellbeing, but because, when we return, we will be able to cherish all the more those things we find good and familiar.
Holidays can provide educational and vocational experiences that are impossible to replicate in the classroom. Sarah, a parent from Haworth in my constituency, told me that holidays helped her children
“get out of their comfort zone, learn something new and experience new cultures”.
Another parent, a dairy farmer from Skipton, said school holidays are the busiest time of the year on their farm, and that term-time breaks are the only opportunity to take time away as a family, reinforcing the balance between work, rest and family life.
It is not unreasonable that families should aspire to an annual family holiday, with all the benefits I just outlined, but parents are rightly concerned that the current system, which allows fines to be used for even a single unauthorised absence and requires that they be considered if a child is absent for five days in any 10-week period, criminalises them for simply wanting time with their children—not to mention the economic cost of the fines themselves. Jack, a young man from Keighley, shared that his single mother was repeatedly threatened with fines and even legal action for absences that they could not afford to avoid. He described the stress that that caused their family as “crushing”.
The fundamental challenge is that those on both sides of this debate can claim to have the best interests of a child at heart. Attendance is, of course, important, but so are family time and the educational and recreational benefits of a good holiday. We should not be pursuing attendance for attendance’s sake, or pursuing it solely because high attendance might look good in an Ofsted inspection. We need only look at the devastating effects of school closures during covid to see the catastrophic consequences of persistent absenteeism: learning is damaged, safeguarding signs are missed and children miss out on key opportunities to socialise into society. But when we consider just a few days a year for a family holiday for otherwise present children, are we really talking about the same issue? As one teacher who responded to my survey put it:
“Just because a child is physically in the building does not mean they are learning—a child who is burnt out or anxious may gain far more from a few days’ respite with family.”
It is surely true that the parents paying these fines and objecting to feelings of having broken the law are the same parents who are generally law abiding and value their children being in school. The fines are not successfully tackling the national scandal of persistent absenteeism in the wake of covid, and yet they are wreaking havoc for otherwise well-meaning families. Indeed, 487,300 penalty notices for unauthorised absences were issued in the 2023-24 academic year, an increase of 22% on 398,800 in the previous year.
At local level, many local authorities have attempted to adjust processes to improve attendance, with little to no positive impact. In Bradford, the council has issued 11,565 fixed penalty notices this year alone. Views on the issue are certainly not settled. As a serving headteacher who responded to my survey put it:
“There are only 190 school days per year and a huge amount of learning coverage to get through in the National Curriculum. A child taking ‘just’ 10 days leave each year of their statutory education would miss a staggering 25 full weeks of their education—that’s well over half a year’s lost learning time.”
On one level, there is the challenge of how we tackle absenteeism effectively without punishing parents seeking to enrich the lives of their children, and on another there is the challenge of ensuring that that does not have an impact on a child’s education.
Another hugely important area is children with special educational needs and disabilities. As we know, the SEND system is in crisis, for a whole range of reasons. For many SEND families, a family holiday is one of the key opportunities to decompress from the stress, but the busy holiday period is too much for many SEND children to handle. Natalie was very keen to put that point to me when we had our initial discussions before this debate.
For some SEND families, off-peak holidays are not a matter of money or convenience; they are a wellbeing requirement for their child. Why should a child struggling with SEND be denied the same access to a holiday as a non-SEND classmate by the threat of fines being issued to their parent? Sophie, the mother of a 10-year-old recently diagnosed with learning difficulties, told me that her daughter
“thrives and comes out of her shell”
when abroad, saying that the trips are about building confidence and life skills. Another parent, who cares for a child with autism, said that the crowded peak periods are simply impossible for their family to manage and that off-peak breaks are often the only realistic option. It is absolutely true that SEND children have some of the biggest challenges with absenteeism from the classroom, but in the grand scheme of things, are the few days of a family holiday for a child who is generally in school the days that schools and local authorities should be going after, or should other matters be considered?
It is clear that the existing model is broken on a purely practical level. For a parent with multiple children in different schools, the situation becomes even more complex. In my outreach, I heard from a number of families about the nightmare of getting permission for one child to be absent, but not getting it for the other. The parents are then left asking themselves whether to call the whole holiday off or take the financial hit. How do they make sure that one child is not blamed by another for the cancellation of their family holiday? The likelihood of getting permission can vary wildly between schools and local authorities. Government guidance has been issued, but it is clearly being treated as just that.
I want to finish with what I hope might be a solution to help us sidestep the issue that we are considering. Parents should not have to feel that they are battling the state to get the best for their child; they should be able to rely on the state to help them. Academies already possess the power to alter their term dates, provided that they meet the minimum requirement for annual teaching time. I know of a number of schools that have successfully used those powers to provide odd weeks within their school year outside term time. That slight change in term dates creates opportunities for many parents and cleanly sidesteps the whole issue, creating off-peak holiday time that is accessible to families who would otherwise feel that they had to take a term-time holiday. I stress that it does not reduce the overall hours of learning that a child undertakes annually; it merely redistributes them throughout the year. What is more, providing a clear, comprehensive week of holiday outside peak times empowers heads to remain strict about term-time holidays that are taken regardless.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
The steps that the hon. Member is outlining seem clear and pragmatic. Local children used to take time off school to go to the Great Yorkshire Show. He talked about expanding horizons and the educational and vocational understanding of things. Does he agree that another pragmatic step would be allowing time off school for people to enjoy things like the Great Yorkshire Show?
Robbie Moore
As a fellow Yorkshire MP, I absolutely agree with allowing time out of the classroom for children to go to really good education settings like those provided by agricultural societies and others. That can absolutely be a way of enriching a child’s experience and learning outcomes. If a school becomes an academy, the headteacher has the flexibility to make those decisions on behalf of their students. I would advocate for all schools’ heads to consider that as part of enriched learning. Critics will be quick to point out that the solution that I have proposed is available only to academies, but I suggest that that is a reason to expand academies and expand the powers of local authority schools, and not to ignore what I believe is a sensible solution to a tricky issue.
I will close with a response that I received from the chair of governors of a local school in Yorkshire, who summed up the fundamental tension well and is against the objective of the petition. It states:
“Schools are challenged enough on attendance and ensuring children get a good education. More disadvantaged children are proportionally more affected by both sides of this argument.
The bigger question should be, what is the government doing to fund schools to allow children to get the broader experiences they are getting on these proposed days off?
How are they supporting education in different cultures, languages and travel?”
I hope that in opening the debate, I have adequately highlighted the pressures on the current, fine-based system and the many exacerbating factors, particularly for families with SEND children. I am sure that colleagues will have their own local stories and cases to share, and I hope that I have set the scene, on both sides of the argument, for a lively debate.
Several hon. Members rose—
Emma Lewell (in the Chair)
Order. Will Members please keep their contributions to five minutes, so that everyone can get in? I the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I start by recognising the strength of feeling on term-time absences from school, particularly among the almost 182,000 people who signed the petition. Family life is precious, and there are so many pressures bearing down on families that serve to make time spent together relaxing and enjoying one another’s company all the more important. Going away on holiday; major family celebrations; religious holidays not currently reflected in our school calendar; caring responsibilities; parental separation—a whole range of circumstances can seem like more important priorities than being in school every single day of the school year, but I will set out three reasons why I do not agree that 10 days of permitted absence a year is the right way to address these concerns.
First, and most importantly, all the evidence indicates that it is in children’s best interests to be in school with their peers as much as they possibly can. The link between attendance at school and attainment is strong: the Government’s data shows that key stage 2 pupils in year 6 who attended almost every day were 1.3 times more likely to achieve the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with pupils who attended 90% to 95% of the time. Missing 10 days of school a year reduced the likelihood of achieving the expected standard by 25%.
For key stage 4 pupils in year 11, the situation is even starker. Missing 10 days of school reduces the chance of gaining a grade 5 in English or maths by 50%. That is because education builds from the foundations of a subject upwards. Missing days of education results in gaps in knowledge and understanding, which can affect a child’s ability to grasp future concepts properly, meaning that they never fully catch up.
Secondly, a major concern of many petitioners is the excessive cost of holidays outside term time. Holidays are really important, and families should be able to go away. It is absolutely wrong for travel companies to exploit the constraints of families with children of school age by hiking up their prices during the school holidays. The practice is simply unfair—but the solution to the unfair pricing policies of travel companies is not to allow parents to remove their children from school to be able to afford a holiday; it is for travel companies to do the right thing and even out their pricing over the year, so that parents of school-age children are not penalised for doing the right thing and keeping their children in school.
Thirdly, I am concerned about the impact of a change in policy to allow authorised absence for some parents on the attendance of the most vulnerable pupils. We have an attendance crisis in our schools at present; more than 22% of children severely or persistently absent from school. My Committee has been doing some work on school attendance, and we know that persistent and severe absence is a complex problem with a number of contributory factors, including poverty, an increased level of social, emotional and mental health need following the covid-19 pandemic, and the crisis in the SEND system.
School leaders tell us that the pandemic broke the social contract between schools and parents, and that it has often been difficult to repair it. Introducing an entitlement to authorised absence would send entirely the wrong message to families at a time when the whole system should be pulling together to restore trust and confidence and to support children who are struggling to be in school to thrive.
For the most vulnerable children, school is a protective factor. It is where they can get a hot meal—thanks to this Government, they are able to get both a healthy and nutritious breakfast and a hot lunch—can forge positive relationships with trusted adults and can access not only education, but a wider range of enriching extracurricular activities. If we say it is fine for the children of parents who can afford a holiday to skip school for 10 days, what message are we sending about the importance of being in school to the families who may never have the opportunity to go on holiday, but who often encounter significant obstacles in getting their children to school, for a wide range of reasons?
The current challenges of severe and persistent absence demand multiple solutions. Schools must continue to rebuild relationships of trust with parents. The Government’s reforms to SEND and to the curriculum and assessment framework must ensure that school is an exciting, inspiring and engaging place for all children and young people. The child poverty strategy must remove the barriers to school attendance for the poorest pupils.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member’s argument, but does she agree that slapping on fines will make the relationship between parents and schools more adversarial, creating more problems than it tries to solve?
Helen Hayes
I have not mentioned fines, but I agree that fining parents is a very flawed area of policy. I do not want to say it is always entirely the wrong thing to do, but fines are not a particularly effective mechanism for discouraging parents from removing their children from school for a holiday. The cost of a fine is almost always cheaper than the additional costs of a holiday outside term time. That is why I said that the solution to the imbalance in costs across term time is not to enable and authorise that absence, but to deal with the exploitative policies of travel companies. Fines, undoubtedly, are an imperfect mechanism.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will recall that we in the Education Committee held an evidence session in July about school attendance. One of the witnesses stated that fines are
“simultaneously too harsh and too soft”;
too harsh, because they damage the relationship between parents and schools, but too soft to move the dial substantially on school attendance. Although, as a former teacher, I agree with the main thrust of my hon. Friend’s argument, does she have any further reflection on the need to look at the fines system again, to replace it or to come up with something more effective?
Helen Hayes
Fundamentally, we are talking about relationships in this debate, particularly between schools and parents. The best way to build strong relationships is not through punitive measures. We need to properly resource schools, through the wider policy work of Government, to rebuild the relationships that were so damaged by the pandemic, and to make progress in this area.
Finally, I come back to where I started. Family time matters, and family holidays are important periods of fun and restoration. I call on the Government to do more—to work with the travel industry to stop the exploitation of families with school-age children through unfair price hikes, perhaps by introducing a new family-friendly charter mark for companies that even out their pricing throughout the year—and to continue to ease the cost of living pressures that far too many families face, so that every child can thrive both in school and at play.
Rupert Lowe (Great Yarmouth) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
Parents bring their children into this world; they clothe them, feed them, love them, raise them and, yes, educate them. Schools should support families, not to replace them. Yet right now in Britain parents are being fined and threatened simply for taking their children out of school for a handful of days to spend meaningful time together as a family. Is that such an awful crime? I think not.
This is a society that treats the state, not the parent, as the ultimate authority. The Government claim that missing five days of school a year will somehow destroy a child’s education. Really? If so, we have no confidence in our education system at all. Meanwhile, schools hold teacher training days in term time, or teachers strike and shut classrooms; yet somehow it is parents who are punished when learning is interrupted.
I say they should take the teacher training days in the school holidays—there are certainly plenty of those to choose from. The state must realise that parents are not the enemy. A short term-time family holiday is not an act of neglect; often, it is the only opportunity many families ever get for such an experience, because the travel industry hikes prices to astronomical levels outside term time.
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
Would the hon. Member agree that, while price controls are a nice idea in theory, they are a terrible idea in practice? Supply and demand ultimately dictate the price of something so, while it is a nice suggestion, it would not work in real life. Does he agree?
Rupert Lowe
I agree with the hon. Member.
Why should working families be priced out of memories—particularly parents such as those in my Great Yarmouth constituency, who rely so heavily on the tourism trade during the school holidays for their careers or business activity? Parents know what is best for their children far better than a distant bureaucrat sitting in Westminster armed with a spreadsheet. Those are the same bureaucrats who thought it best to lock children away from school for months on end for what equated to a bad cold for the vast majority of them during lockdown. I think I will listen to the parents.
I suggest three basic reforms. Every family should have the right to a small number of authorised term-time absence days each year, at the family’s discretion; there should be no fines for responsible parents; headteachers must be empowered to use their own judgment. Let us end the nonsense that Government officials somehow know our children better than we do.
Childhood is short. Parents should not need permission from the state to raise their own children. It is time to return authority to parents and to shrink the reach of this bloated and inefficient state into our family lives. Let us put families back at the top of the agenda, where they used to be.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate on holidays in school term time. This issue resonates deeply with families across the country, including in my own constituency of Hartlepool, where 530 residents signed the petition we are debating today.
Let us start with the reality that every parent recognises. They search for a family holiday in June and it costs a certain amount; they search for one in August and the cost has exploded. For many families those price hikes make a break together completely unaffordable. I have taken to calling it the Center Parcs tax. This morning I searched the Center Parcs website for a short break next May. Four nights from 11 May is £599; from 18 May it is £599; but from 25 May it is £1,349—a £750 mark-up for the exact same trip, simply because it falls in half-term. It is cheaper to take the fine.
Of course, it is not just one company; the practice is rife across the entire holiday sector. Families are being priced out of spending time together, and the state’s response is to fine them for trying. It is immoral. I say to the Minister, “Ban those practices by holiday companies and end the culture of fines.” Parents should not have to choose between doing the right thing by their children’s education and giving them a well-earned family break. Families already struggling with the cost of living should not be punished for trying to give their children the same experiences as everyone else.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Could the hon. Member explain how he would stop that practice by the holiday companies?
Mr Brash
There are a number of mechanisms. The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), offered one solution. I am a believer in price controls in this area and that the state can intervene in the market here; it is basic fairness.
Of course attendance matters. As a former teacher, I have seen at first hand the link between attendance and attainment. Students with 100% attendance are nearly three times more likely to achieve five good GCSEs, including English and maths, compared with those whose attendance drops to 65% to 70%. But let us be honest with parents: the current system is not working. Expecting families to pay fines to prove a point about attendance does nothing to tackle the real problem.
Research shows that fining parents does not improve attendance. There is no statistically significant link between more fines and better attendance rates. Indeed, the UNESCO Global Education Monitoring Report found the same internationally: fines do not work, but they do harm low-income families. Instead, punitive measures often make things worse, creating tension and mistrust between families and schools. We know many children with poor attendance have special educational needs, as has already been mentioned, or anxiety or mental health issues. Punishing their parents does not solve those challenges; it just adds financial and emotional pressure. The Centre for Mental Health has even warned that fines can exacerbate the very issues that keep children away from school.
I am proud that in Hartlepool we are trying to look at things differently. Alongside nine other local areas, we are part of a pilot programme run with the Department for Education and a social enterprise called Etio. I met Etio last week, and what it is doing is simple but powerful. When it comes to attendance, the focus is on support. Its teams sit down with families to understand what is really going on, whether it is anxiety, caring responsibilities, transport programmes or financial hardship, and offer practical help to get children back into the classroom. The results are encouraging. When families feel supported rather than criminalised, attendance improves and relationships between schools and parents are strengthened. It is just common sense. If we fix the root cause, we fix the problem.
That is the approach we should champion nationally, replacing the blunt instrument of fines with early help, understanding and partnership, because the issue goes far deeper than holiday costs. It is about fairness, common sense and respect for families. Parents should not be treated as offenders for trying to spend time with their children and for giving them a holiday.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for opening this important debate. The strength of feeling behind this petition is clear, with over 1,000 signatures in my constituency alone. It was raised by my constituent, Natalie Elliott, a formidable campaigner and a vital supporter to families facing fines, often in stressful and traumatic circumstances. The petition proposes that families should be permitted to take their children out of school for up to 10 days without facing fines. While I will not pre-empt the Minister’s response, recent indications suggest that the Government are unlikely to support this proposal, given their stance that absence is one of the biggest barriers to success. However, despite differing views on the status quo, it is clear to me that both the petitioner and the Government share a common purpose: the wellbeing of our children.
I am a firm believer that a good education is one of the most powerful tools for social mobility. Coming from a working-class background, access to quality state education gave me opportunities that ultimately led me to serve in this House. However, under the current system, families face significant challenges. The national framework for penalty notices is applied inconsistently across England. Research by Confused.com found that Essex issued over 35,000 fines between 2022 and 2024, while Cornwall issued just 535. Even within local authority areas, there is a postcode lottery. Educators have told me that pressure to improve attendance can lead to overly rigid policies. Some schools mandate only four sick days per year, refuse to authorise any Friday absences and demand medical evidence for minor illnesses. That not only contradicts statutory guidance but adds pressure to an already overstretched NHS.
There is sometimes a lack of empathy for family circumstances. My constituent Chris faced court action because the local authority could not find a special school place for his child. Thankfully, the judge agreed that fining a parent because the local authority was not meeting their child’s needs was inappropriate, and promptly kicked the case out. I have also heard of fines issued during bereavement. There is no appeals process—just pay the fine or risk criminal conviction. Will the Minister consider an appeals mechanism?
SEND families are particularly affected, and the system in Derbyshire is under immense strain. Children with autism or ADHD often cannot cope with busy holiday periods, yet their families are fined for going away when it is quieter. Those children have a right to family life and legal protections, but too often they are overlooked. If this Government are serious about reducing absenteeism, I urge them to include school attendance in the upcoming SEND White Paper.
I acknowledge the Government’s efforts to ease the cost of family life, from expanding free school meals and nursery care, to breakfast clubs and cheaper uniforms. Those are important steps. But when families with the means to send their children to private schools are exempt from penalties, and those who can afford peak-season travel face no deterrent, yet others must choose between incurring a fine or forgoing a family holiday altogether, we are not dealing with a minor inconvenience but confronting a structural inequality. The injustice does not stop at the school gates. Holiday companies continue to exploit demand through dynamic pricing, pushing costs beyond reach for ordinary families. What action will the Government take to tackle this profiteering and ensure that family holidays are not a luxury for the few, but within the reach of all?
James McMurdock (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Ind)
It is an honour to speak under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for securing this debate, and for a remark that he made during his opening speech, which I think we can all thoroughly agree with: everyone in this debate, regardless of view, completely supports having children’s welfare at the centre of this. I certainly champion that.
We are not debating the importance of education, because we all thoroughly agree on that. Regardless of our side of the debate, we also agree that some of the statistics relating to children’s attainment depending on their attendance records are quite striking. There is clearly a correlation there. But correlation is not necessarily causation. We have heard today that people can be there in body but not in mind. There is definitely a difference between trustworthy, decent parents choosing to take their children out of school at an appropriate time for appropriate reasons, and truancy.
We are debating whether fines are appropriate for holidays. I do not think they are at all appropriate, but I agree with tackling the causes of truancy and supporting families so that children receive an education. I hope everyone believes me when I say I am a firm believer in education. However, it is not appropriate for the Government to fine families who are decent, thorough and good—as we should assume they are in the vast majority of cases—for choosing to take their children out when there are no opportunities for debate with the school, to make exceptions or to let reason speak for itself. It is thoroughly wrong, and we are doing a lot of decent families a disservice.
I am not for letting children and families just do whatever, because I appreciate that, on the other side of this debate, are the teachers who have to manage the additional challenge that that would bring. However, we are humans and this is a human world; ultimately, we should support, not penalise, decent and reasonable people making decent and reasonable decisions for themselves. On that basis, I support the cancelling of fines for parents taking their children out of school.
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Like many constituencies across the country, Sherwood Forest sees stark evidence that educational inequalities are deeply entrenched. As someone who worked on the frontline in education, I know beyond any doubt that attendance is vital for achievement. The reality of how our education system works is that every missed school day means a gap in learning. For children already facing disadvantage, that gap can become a chasm.
When a child’s family struggles, their education is the best route out of poverty and for the future—I have seen that personally. We must do everything to support their time in the classroom. However, we also stand on the shoulders of the generations who fought for the fundamental right to a break. That is not a new concept; it is woven into our social history. Let us think of the pioneering work of Cadbury, which a century ago revolutionised the idea of the workplace, recognising that employees were entitled to leisure time and a full, well-rounded life. Alternatively, there is the proud tradition of “Nottingham by the sea”. For decades, factories and pits across Nottinghamshire would shut down simultaneously for wakes week. Families would flock to Skegness—a collective, essential journey for rest and recuperation. That was not a luxury; it was a societal commitment to the wellbeing of hard-working working-class people and their families.
The rights to a break, to a breath of fresh air and to simply spend time together as a family have long been recognised as an essential component of a healthy, productive society, so how did it become acceptable that companies raise their prices as they have?
Whether for a nostalgic caravan holiday in Skegness or Great Yarmouth, which many of us enjoyed as kids, or a much-needed trip to Spain, why are travel and holiday companies permitted to quadruple their prices the moment the school bell rings? That is not simple economics, but exploitation. It is an outrage and a stain on our society. Hard-working parents who keep our local economy moving are deliberately priced out of a basic, restorative family holiday.
Shockat Adam
In the absence of being able to change the minds of our tour operators, does the hon. Member agree that we may need to look at the whole timetable of our syllabuses and school terms? They date back to Victorian times 150 or 160 years ago. Perhaps we should have a five-term academic year and more frequent two-week breaks.
Michelle Welsh
I absolutely agree, especially as someone who has a five-year old and was trying to balance this during the recess.
Who pays the highest price for this? The children of the families who are already struggling. Those children often live in cramped housing, rely on school for hot meals and desperately need the stimulation, new experiences and simple joy of a family holiday. They are denied the chance to build memories and see the world beyond their postcode, which is vital. I have taken some of the most vulnerable children in the east midlands away on adventure holidays—they have an enormous impact on their education and wellbeing. We cannot stand by while a family’s well-deserved rest is treated as a penalty to be charged. A break for a family is not a privilege to be rationed; it is a right that must be protected.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on leading this debate and making many a point that I am about to make and agree with.
I thank those who created and signed the petition, including 357 of my constituents. I have heard from many families who are deeply concerned about the current approach to school attendance and the impact of fines for term-time holidays. Those concerns are especially pressing for those facing challenging circumstances, including financial pressures and limited flexibility in their work schedules, along with those who have children with special educational needs and disabilities, for whom routine, flexibility and emotional wellbeing are often more complex and nuanced.
At the heart of this issue is a tension between two important priorities: ensuring that children benefit from consistent education, and recognising the value of quality time spent together as a family. There is no doubt that regular school attendance is vital. Department for Education research published in March showed a strong correlation between attendance and attainment, with just 10 days’ absence in year 6 reducing the likelihood of achieving the expected standard by 25%, as has been mentioned. Persistent absenteeism can lead to gaps in learning, reduced engagement and difficulties reintegrating into the classroom, all of which can have long-term consequences and act as a significant barrier to opportunity.
We must also acknowledge that family time matters. Shared experiences strengthen family bonds, support emotional wellbeing and create lasting memories, which are vital for a child’s overall development. Those moments are not just desirable; they are necessary. We also need to consider the needs of individual children, particularly those with SEND, including neurodivergent pupils. Any parent of a neurodivergent child—including myself—will say that busier environments, unfamiliar routines and crowded travel periods can be overwhelming and distressing. For some, taking a holiday during quieter times may be the only way a family can ensure their child feels safe, regulated and able to enjoy the experience. In those cases, flexibility around term-time absence is not just helpful; it is a matter of inclusion and wellbeing.
Being unable to choose when to take time off is another broader but related challenge that many families face. For some constituents who have contacted me—notably, an airline pilot—holiday periods are allocated or restricted by employers, limiting parents’ ability to align their leave with school breaks. That lack of flexibility makes it difficult for families to spend meaningful time together, even when school holidays are available.
As we have heard a lot, the most common concern I hear—one that every person here with a child of school age will have experienced—is the inflated cost of holidays during school breaks. Those price hikes make holidays unaffordable for many, meaning that children miss out on valuable experiences, simply because their parents cannot afford to travel during peak times. For parents on lower incomes who decide to take their children on holiday during school term time, the financial challenges they face are often compounded by the imposition of a fine, which many families struggle to afford. That unfairness is exacerbated by a perception of inconsistency. Families tell me that requests for authorised absence are handled differently from one school to another—in particular, between schools in the state sector and independent schools. That lack of uniformity creates confusion and frustration, and can feel unfair to parents trying to do the right thing.
There is no straightforward answer to any of these challenges, but I have long been an advocate of switching to the five-term school year. That model would offer more evenly distributed holidays throughout the year, reducing pressure on the summer break and giving families greater flexibility. It could also help ease the financial burden by spreading demand more evenly across the calendar, potentially lowering travel costs. For teachers, the benefits of a five-term year are equally compelling. Teaching is a demanding profession, and the current long stretches between holidays can lead to fatigue and burnout. More frequent, shorter breaks would allow teachers to recharge regularly, improving wellbeing and job satisfaction. It would also support better curriculum planning, reduce the pressure of end-of-term assessments and create a more sustainable rhythm for teaching and learning.
It is important to recognise that each family has its own unique circumstances, and there is not a one-size-fits-all rule for when spending time together is appropriate. While I agree that school attendance must remain a priority, we must recognise the realities that families face. A more compassionate, flexible and consistent approach that values both education and family life is not only possible but necessary. By rethinking the structure of the school year and advocating for greater flexibility in the workplace, I believe we can create a system that works better for everyone.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. I congratulate the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) on introducing the petition, and I thank the petitioners themselves. I am also grateful to the 865 people in Stevenage who signed this petition, showing how strongly families feel about the issue.
I will shortly turn to some of the reasons why the petition really matters, but before I do, I must be clear that every day in school counts—and parents agree. In addition to the evidence that we have heard from the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), 78% of parents say that every school day matters, according to the charity Parentkind. The evidence backs them up: missing even a few days can have a big impact. Year 6 pupils with near perfect attendance are 30% more likely to meet expected standards. Secondary pupils with near perfect attendance are almost twice as likely to achieve a grade 5 in English and Maths. Persistently absent pupils could earn £10,000 less by the age of 28.
Normalising the taking of time off in term time would send the wrong message. It would undermine teachers’ hard work and risks widening the attainment gap. Every missed day is not just a lost lesson, but a lost opportunity. I am sure that many of the parents who signed this petition would wholeheartedly agree with that, but, as the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley explained at the outset, it is simply the only way they can afford quality family time together.
Just last week, a constituent told me that the only way they can afford a holiday is to take their children out of school one or two days before the end of term, knowing they would not risk a fine but can still take advantage of cheaper prices. If parents have to play the system like that, we know that the system itself is broken. The real problem, which many Members have touched on, is that families are not breaking rules because they do not care; they are simply being priced out.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) started with Center Parcs, so let me turn to Center Parcs. Four days at Center Parcs Woburn Forest, near me, in term time is £429. In February half-term, that goes up to £1,449—an increase of 238%. At Center Parcs in Longleat, four days in term time is £579, but in half-term it is £1,599—an increase of 176%.
A British Airways flight from Heathrow to Geneva costs £184 in term time, but in half-term that goes up to £3,072, which is a 1,570% increase—and it is outbound only. In May half-term, a TUI Tenerife package for seven days in term time costs £1,204, and in half-term it costs £2,384—an increase of 98%. A Jet2 flight to Bodrum in term time is £500, but in half-term it is £1,065, which is an increase of 113%. Then there are the summer holidays, which are much longer, but people still get hit. A Ryanair flight from Newcastle to Faro in term time is £140, but in the summer holidays, it is £340—an increase of 143%. With packages in Spain on Go.Compare, seven days in term time is £290 per person, but that goes up to £384 in the school holidays, meaning that a family would pay £760 more.
What can the Government do to stop the travel industry from exploiting families with outrageous price hikes during school holidays? Fines are simply not working. According to Parentkind, 61% of parents say that the risk of a fine makes no difference to them. Families feel trapped between unaffordable prices and rigid rules. Even when they want to play by the rules, they are still penalised. A single mum in Stevenage told me that she had been fined even though it had been her ex-husband who took their child out of school.
Let us not pit education against family time; let us ensure that both are respected and that no parent is forced to choose between their child’s education and quality family time together.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell.
In Mansfield, 850 people signed this petition because they believe that families deserve some fairness, freedom and a bit of common sense. I believe they also know that a rounded education is about a bit more than attendance and penalty notices. It is also about giving our children experiences, memories and time with their families—the sort of time that helps them to grow, to feel loved and to see the world beyond the classroom.
Let us be honest, for working families in towns such as mine, the idea of a week away in August has become a luxury that very few can afford. When prices triple the moment that schools break up, parents are faced with an impossible choice: break the rules or break the bank. These parents are decent, hard-working people, such as nurses, shop workers, delivery drivers and care assistants. They do everything right. They work all year and pay their taxes, and then they are told that they cannot take their kids away for a few days because it is term time. Working people deserve a break and families deserve a choice, and the state should not be micro-managing family life to this extent.
Last week, I put out a social media post asking people for their comments on this issue ahead of our debate. I have had literally thousands of comments, replies and emails from constituents. The response has been completely overwhelming, and here are just a few of the comments. Katie says:
“There’s a cost of living crisis making it difficult to go on holiday during term time as it is more expensive, we are trying our hardest to ensure our children live a happy and fulfilling life and make sure they have many happy memories.”
Lauren says:
“For many of us, especially those of us who are working in the NHS and other key sectors, aligning leave with school holidays is often impossible. Families are left with that heartbreaking choice—miss out on precious time together or face financial penalties.”
Lisa, whose name I have changed, is a foster parent with disabled children who has also been fined. She said:
“Due to the age and disability of our children, we were very limited by when suitable accommodation was available. Our children’s attendance was otherwise excellent - their only absences were for hospital appointments, over which we have absolutely no control, and there are no concerns with their academic attainment.”
Holly, a constituent of mine who is awaiting a fine, wrote to me:
“School and education is a priority for my family, but to make parents feel like criminals is not acceptable. Let’s remember children get one childhood, and life is not always simple, with family illness, death and other issues that occur, not just holidays.”
That is what life looks like for real families in my constituency and across the UK. They are not asking for weeks and weeks off; they are asking for just a few days every year to make family memories without fear of being fined for it.
Of course children need the best possible education—every one of us wants that—but education is not just about exams and attainment. It is also about experience, balance and wellbeing. Right now, I believe that we have got the balance wrong. Let us trust parents a little more. Let us treat them like adults. Let us show a bit of compassion and common sense, because families in Mansfield and right across our country have made it clear to me—and to all of us, I believe—that they want the freedom to decide what is best for their own children.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
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.
Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell, and to take part in this debate. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his opening remarks on this important topic. He spoke eloquently on behalf of the 181,000 signatories of this petition, including the 208 in Meriden and Solihull East. He rightly pointed out that holidays are valuable: they provide not just rest and relaxation but the opportunity to experience new cultures and expand one’s horizons. A number of Members made similar remarks, so holidays are clearly important.
Although I do not advocate price controls—I believe in the value of the market—I thought that the remarks of the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) about the family friendly charter were interesting. I hope that companies such as Jet2 and Center Parcs are listening to this debate and thinking about how they can be more family friendly.
School is vital for every child. It equips young people with the knowledge they need to go into the world of work, whatever it may be, and contribute to society. It also plays a pivotal role in teaching young people to socialise, form relationships, take personal responsibility for their actions and behave appropriately. Put simply, school is not just about getting good grades; it is there to prepare us for life. Every single school day missed is a lesson not learned, whether that is an academic lesson or a lesson about life itself.
Across the House, we want our constituents to be able to send their children to the very best schools. I firmly believe that part of that is about ensuring that headteachers create an environment where all children are keen to get into a classroom to learn. We can, however, be in no doubt that our education system is facing a major challenge in school attendance. Although it is welcome news that the overall absence rate has fallen slightly for the most recent academic year for which there is data, absence rates remain uncomfortably high compared with pre-pandemic levels. All of us in the House have an obligation to help reverse that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley rightly pointed out, we have only to look at the catastrophic effects of school closures during the covid-19 pandemic to see the consequences of persistent absenteeism.
The current picture of absenteeism in schools is certainly challenging. In England, the overall absence rate fell to an estimated 6.9% in 2024-25, down from 7.1% in 2023-24, although still above the pre-covid rate of 4.7%. Data for persistent absence also shows a downward trend, but remains high at 18.7% in 2024-25, compared with 21.2% in 2022-23. Any child who is persistently absent from school is one child too many, losing out on vital hours in the classroom that they cannot get back. It is in that context that we must address the petition, which seeks to allow parents to take their children out of school. Even more worrying than just those headline statistics is the fact that an increasing number of people now seem to believe that it does not matter if a child is absent from school. That is not all parents, but certainly some. The impression that time spent in the classroom does not equip students for their future stands in clear contrast to the wealth of evidence that shows that children who are absent from school experience worse outcomes later in life.
As the Department for Education’s research on the link between attendance and attainment has shown, pupils who missed only 10 days of school in year 6, which the petition wants to allow, were 25% less likely to meet the expected standard in reading, writing and maths, compared with those who attended school nearly every day. At GCSE level, that trend is even more dramatic, with pupils who missed only 10 days of school in year 11 being 50% less likely to achieve a grade 5 in Maths and English than those who attended school nearly every day.
Those trends show just how damaging even marginally lower rates of school attendance can be for pupils. It should serve as a stark warning to those who would dismiss being absent from school for a few days as no major problem. It is not just grades that suffer as a result, either; children who start to fall behind in school find it difficult to make up for that lost time and catch up with what other pupils have already learned, only worsening a problem that starts with just a few days of being out of school. With that in mind, can the Minister provide an update on what the Government are doing to reverse the trend of school absences?
Attending school irregularly can lead to lower earnings later in life, a higher chance of unemployment and, in the most extreme circumstances, persistent offending in adulthood. That is why it must always be a problem when children are not in school when they need to be, no matter how innocent a few days off may seem. It is important that we make clear that persistent absence is not acceptable. We cannot create a world where absence is deemed as the norm, because that will likely lead to young people seeing it as acceptable in the workplace. Not only will it harm a young person’s job prospects; it will lead to lower productivity, which harms our economy. Does the Minister therefore have any data that highlights the link between persistent absence and the nearly 1 million young people who are not in employment or education?
Wanting to work from home with the children or go on holiday may appear to be far less serious reasons for absence from school than social issues, but any day missed has the same effect on children: to deny them the education that leads to success later in life. There will, of course, always be instances where allowances need to be made for children to be absent from school, particularly when bereavement is involved. I have had to deal with that as a constituency Member of Parliament, but headteachers already have discretion to grant leave in exceptional circumstances such as those. Both schools and the Government must always be clear that some issues cannot be deemed as an acceptable circumstance, and the headteacher should have the discretion to decide that. Although some fines for unauthorised absences may seem harsh, it is even harsher to deny families the truth about the effects of taking children out of school and setting their children up for failure later in life. Does the Minister have any evidence on whether fines work to improve absence rates?
Getting a grip on the problem of school attendance and returning rates to pre-pandemic levels require a concerted effort across the Government, schools and wider society, and I am proud of the work that the previous Government did to help achieve that important ambition. The previous Government recognised that improving attendance is essential for a variety of reasons, and that, for this to happen, we must ensure that school is somewhere every child wants to be, so they can feel safe and ready to learn in an orderly, calm and supportive environment.
The previous Government instigated a major national drive to improve school attendance through attendance hubs. Thanks to the Conservatives, there were 18 new attendance hubs across six regions, bringing the total to 32 and helping nearly 2,000 schools to tackle persistent absence. That included investment of up to £15 million over three years—providing direct, intensive support to more than 10,000 persistent and severely absent pupils and their families. There were 380,000 fewer pupils who were persistently absent or not attending school in ’22-23 than there were in ’21-22.
We were committed to working closely with schools and local authorities to drive up attendance rates, and we had a six-point plan to deal with some of the problems. That included requiring schools to have an attendance policy, appointing attendance champions and expecting local authorities to hold termly meetings with schools to agree individual plans for at-risk children. In addition, we attempted to tighten legislation, through the Schools Bill, to put pressure on local authorities to improve school attendance, requiring all schools to have attendance policies and extending the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene. What consideration has the Minister given to reviving some of those policies to help bring down absence? Labour said that persistent absence is the first barrier it will seek to break, so can the Minister update us on the progress on that and how it is being measured?
The previous Government also made schools share attendance data to help to combat low attendance, including a national framework for parental fines. Statutory guidance from the Department for Education ensured that improving education was everybody’s business, breaking down barriers to accessing education. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which has been heavily criticised by Opposition Members, contains a duty on local authorities to maintain registers of children who are not in school, as well as a duty on parents to provide certain information on those registered. Will the Minister update the House on the Bill’s progress and on when we can expect to see the consultation on the register?
We cannot allow a culture of school absence to become acceptable, and Members across the Chamber, as well as people outside Parliament, have spoken about a number of ideas for dealing with the problem of persistent absence from school. Wider debate on this issue is obviously necessary. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
The Minister for School Standards (Georgia Gould)
It is a privilege to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. I thank the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) for his thoughtful and nuanced introduction to the debate. It was brilliant to hear that he consulted a whole range of parents, headteachers and others. He set us up for what has been a very thoughtful discussion, with views from Members on all sides of the debate.
We have heard how passionately people feel about the importance of holidays to families. Many families, for a variety of reasons, wish to avoid busier and more expensive periods. I thank Natalie Elliott for her work on raising these issues and for ensuring that they could be debated here. A number of young people have joined us in the Public Gallery—during their half-term—and I commend them for being part of the discussion.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that the blame should sit not with hard-working parents who just want affordable family time, or with school leaders who want pupils not to miss out on education, but with the predatory travel companies we have heard about, which jack up their prices when term time is finished?
Georgia Gould
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point and all hon. Members who have done copious research on the various travel companies and prices at different times. I hope that those companies watch the debate and hear the strength of feeling. The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), made a suggestion that I welcome and will explore further, because it is important that they hear about the impact on many families.
We have heard about not only the importance of family life, but how critical school attendance is for children and young people. Sadly, we still face an absence epidemic in this country. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti), has been collegiate today, so I will point out only gently that had the Conservative Government listened to their education recovery commissioner and invested what was needed to support children post covid, we might not be in such a perilous position, with one in five children persistently absent, missing the equivalent of a day each fortnight.
We are committed to tackling the problem. As we have heard from many, absence is one of the biggest barriers to opportunity, damaging learning, health and wellbeing, future earnings and employment. Each day of lost learning can do serious harm. That is why we will not allow pupils to miss 10 days of school without good reason. However, that does not mean that we are not committed to working alongside families. This Government introduced the national framework for penalty notices, which defines a “support first” approach, working alongside families.
The shadow Minister asked what the Government have done to reduce absence. Thanks to hard work and partnership, there has been progress: more than 5 million more days were spent in school last year than the year before. That is the biggest improvement in a decade, but we remain a long way off pre-pandemic levels of attendance.
If children are not in school, it does not matter how effective or well supported teaching and learning are; they will not benefit. We are working hard to ensure that school is the best place to be for every child. We heard about some of the interventions on the cost of living crisis, free breakfast clubs, the extension of free school meals and the 30 hours of free childcare, which have made a meaningful difference for families. We are also supporting better mental health through access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and inclusion for children with special educational needs and disabilities within mainstream settings right across age ranges.
We want to continue to work with families of children with special educational needs. We heard about how those families face some of the biggest issues with persistent absence and about how important that partnership is. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) and her constituent, whose petition led to this debate, to talk about that in more detail, given the importance of hearing from families as we think about support for young people with SEND.
I have to admit to being somewhat surprised to hear the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) championing the views of parents. I had wondered whether he agreed with the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) that SEND provision is
“being hijacked by…parents who are abusing the system, taking it for a ride.”
I wholeheartedly disagree with that and want to work with parents.
Linsey Farnsworth
On that point, is the Minister also concerned about local authorities such as Derbyshire county council, whose leader is parroting the sentiments of the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) about “overdiagnosis” of SEND? All the families in my constituency that face SEND issues are at their wits’ end trying to get the support that they need, against the backdrop of a council that, on the face of it, does not believe in their plight.
Georgia Gould
I am very concerned by that. I welcome the fact that so many more young people are being diagnosed and getting their needs met. In previous generations, they might never have received that support. I am very concerned about that language.
I also want to echo the points that have been made across the Chamber about the strength of the evidence on attendance. Recent research shows that just an extra 10 days out of school halves a pupil’s chance of getting a grade 5 in English and maths, compared with a similar child with strong attendance. We have also seen research showing that children who are persistently absent during their GCSEs earn £10,000 a year less by the age of 28. Based on the most recent census data, a child who misses 10 days of school each year for a two-week holiday, and also has the average number of days off for sickness and medical appointments, will have missed the equivalent of a full year of school by the time they finish year 11 at age 16. That is worth repeating: a child who takes a fortnight’s term-time holiday each year, and also has the average number of days off due to illness, will miss a full school year over the course of their education. We should be very concerned about that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley also made a point about consistency of application. The national framework is designed to improve consistency. I hope that new data in January will tell us about our progress in removing the postcode lottery. In the year prior to the introduction of the framework, 26 out of 153 local authorities accounted for half of all penalty notices issued. Our work is intended to reduce that inconsistency.
There were a range of questions about flexibility in term time. Schools and local authorities have flexibility to plan term dates and to hold inset days and other occasional days at less busy times of the year, which can help families plan breaks at times that suit them. I know, for example, of councils that have trialled a two-week half-term in October or slightly shifted their summer holidays. Those flexibilities exist at the moment.
We also heard of concerns about the ability of young people with special educational needs to travel at busy periods. I am aware of steps taken by the travel industry to improve their experience, with airports and airlines increasing their autism awareness and producing procedures for affected families. That is an important area to explore further.
I thank all Members for their contributions, and I hope we can continue this conversation. I acknowledge the strength of feeling expressed during the debate. The Government are determined to support children to attend school. As we heard, lack of attendance is one of the biggest barriers to supporting children to achieve and thrive, and it particularly impacts those from disadvantaged backgrounds. We will continue to work with parents, teachers, schools and local authorities to raise attendance levels and support opportunity.
Robbie Moore
On behalf of Natalie Elliott, the lead petitioner, I thank all the Members who spoke in the debate and the 181,000 people who signed the petition that led to it. It is clear that we all agree that good quality education is vital, but so too is family time. Good quality family time can be enriching, holistic and deeply important to a child’s wellbeing and learning experiences.
It is clear that many decent, hard-working families are being penalised by the state through a system that has been widely recognised, including in many contributions to the debate, as ineffective. It simply relies on penalties imposed on incredibly hard-working parents. The system is not fit for purpose. I therefore advocate for the Government to look at how it can be adapted and to recognise, as contributors to the debate have, that SEND children are particularly impacted by the current system.
Let me say finally that academies have flexibility in setting their term dates. I advocate for the Government to consider how academies can be empowered to use the powers they already have, and how local authority schools can use those flexibilities too.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered e-petition 700047 relating to holidays during school term time.