Education Committee

The Committee scrutinised whether the Government’s Best Start in Life ambitions are being delivered in practice for parents of under-fives. Witnesses from Mumsnet, Pregnant then Screwed and the Early Education and Childcare Coalition argued that the headline ambition is popular, but access is fragmented, support is patchy, and affordability and availability remain the core barriers. They welcomed some recent policy moves, including expanded graduate incentives and the Best Start strategy, but pressed for better funding, a workforce strategy, more flexible provision, stronger support for SEND and universal credit childcare users, and clearer safeguarding and complaints processes. They also argued that school readiness should mean social, emotional and play-based development, not just earlier academic pressure, and warned that current entitlements disproportionately benefit middle and higher earners rather than the poorest families.

Evidence heard by the Education Committee on reading for pleasure focused on government commitments to boost reading in schools and communities, notably via the National Year of Reading, investment in school libraries, and the Best Start family hubs. Key measures include £12.5m to primary libraries, £5m for secondary libraries, 1,000 Best Start hubs by 2028 with a target of 2,000 network sites, and curriculum changes including a year 8 reading assessment (not an accountability measure). The witnesses stressed partnerships with libraries, publishers, and community organisations, and an independent evaluation by ImpactEd to assess long-term impact. The session also highlighted tensions around capacity in schools, the balance between phonics and reading for pleasure, and the need for diversity in representation. Dates referenced align to the parliamentary timeframe and the 2026 inquiry context (2026-06-02).

The Education Committee’s Reading for Pleasure inquiry gathered evidence from authors, publishers, booksellers and librarians on why reading for pleasure among children has declined and what could reverse this trend. Witnesses highlighted multifactor causes (screens, poverty, furniture poverty, curriculum pressures, time constraints), the centrality of early years and shared reading, and the ecosystem role of libraries, schools, and bookshops. Key government signals include a National Year of Reading discussion, calls for a sustained, long-term strategy (a “Decade of Reading”), targeted funding, and cross-department collaboration. Proposals include formalising bookshop involvement in Best Start family hubs, protected reading time in curricula, cross-authority data-sharing guidance, and a nationwide library strategy with sustained funding and workforce development.

The Education Committee scrutinised reading for pleasure focusing on the home learning environment, parental engagement, and the role of health visitors, libraries, and Best Start family hubs. Witnesses urged a coherent national strategy, sustained library funding, and ongoing professional development for teachers, citing evidence that daily home reading reduces income disparities and that school libraries, librarians, and pupil-led initiatives improve engagement. Government commitments discussed included primary library roll-out and secondary reading-book funding, but no comprehensive reform package was agreed.

The Education Committee’s two evidence sessions scrutinised harms from screen time and online platforms, and considered potential government actions. Witnesses across civil-society, unions, and Snap highlighted: (i) a strong push for more protective, risk-based, age-appropriate standards for online services targeting children ( NSPCC position ); (ii) a preference for targeted, function-based regulation over blanket bans, complemented by stricter enforcement and sanctions within a strengthened Online Safety framework ( Molly Rose Foundation; NSPCC; Snap ); (iii) concerns about the effectiveness and enforcement of age-verification and “safety by design” claims, calling for clearer, outcome-based standards and rapid enforcement powers for regulators ( Ofcom/ICO ); (iv) the need for substantial funding to implement school/mobile-phone policies and digital-literacy strategies, plus cross-cutting education on digital literacy and misinformation within a refreshed curriculum ( NEU; ASCL; NASUWT; NASUWT ); (v) disagreement with private-platform safety claims, notably around Snapchat’s private messaging risks and evidentiary disputes on harms, safety measures, and enforcement. The session signals government consideration of: tighter age-appropriate access rules for online services, enhanced enforcement tools and penalties, potential platform-wide risk-based restrictions, statutory underpinning for school mobile-phone policies, and enhanced support for digital-literacy and parental engagement in safeguarding children online.

This session scrutinised how major platforms (TikTok, Meta, Roblox) and academic researchers view children’s screentime and safety in the context of the Government’s ongoing policy consultation and Online Safety Act framework. Witnesses discussed age-verification approaches, default safety settings for under-18s, and the balance between user agency and protection. TikTok and Meta emphasised proactive content moderation, age-gating, and parental controls, alongside ongoing collaboration with law enforcement and industry partners. Roblox highlighted its age-estimation tools, age-based accounts, and presence of safety features designed to limit contact with adults. Academics stressed the complexity of establishing causal links between screentime and harms, advocated a multi-pronged, ecosystem approach to evidence-building, and called for faster, transparent data-share arrangements to inform policy. They also considered whether a ban or restricted access for younger users should be contemplated, urging pilots and rigorous evaluation (e.g., in Australia and Bradford) before wide rollout. Across witnesses, the Online Safety Act, age-assurance challenges, and the need for coordinated, evidence-based regulation were recurring themes, with consensus that regulation should be proportionate, evidence-informed, and extended across services rather than platform-by-platform if possible.