Bridget Phillipson says she wants more young people in UK to have children
Bridget Phillipson has expressed concern at the UK's falling birthrate, with the education secretary saying she wanted more young people to have children.
In an article for the Daily Telegraph, written to promote a government policy of providing new nursery places inside about 200 schools across England, Phillipson said she hoped to make it easier for people to have children.
The fertility rate in England and Wales is currently at 1.44 children per woman, the lowest since records began in 1938 and below the figure of around 2.1 needed to maintain a population. The number of babies born in 2023 was the lowest since 1977.
In the article, Phillipson said the falling birthrate was 'a trend which has worrying repercussions for society in the future, but tells a story, heartbreakingly, about the dashed dreams of many families'.
She went on: 'It's why I want more young people to have children, if they so choose; to realise the ordinary aspiration so many share, to create the moments and memories that make our lives fulfilling: having children, seeing them take their first steps, dropping them off at their first day at school, guiding them on their journey into the world of work or taking them to university for the first time.'
Phillipson's comments are reminiscent of entreaties by a series of European leaders for people in their countries to have more children, although hers are expressed as a hope to increase people's opportunities for children should they want to.
While the total number of women of childbearing age is the highest ever, research shows that many people are wary about having children, often because of financial or housing pressures, as well as changing social attitudes.
In her article, Phillipson noted the changed economic and social circumstances in which more than three-quarters of mothers of dependent children had paid jobs, requiring help with things such as childcare.
'But at the same time, the cost of living has soared, dominated by the vast increase in the cost of housing,' she wrote.
'A generation of young people has been thinking twice about starting a family; worried not only about rising mortgage and rent costs, wary not only of the price of fuel and food but also put off by a childcare system simultaneously lacking in places and ruinously expensive.'
Reform UK has previously called for policies to help people have more children, such as abolishing the two-child limit for some benefits and some tax breaks, but Phillipson described these as 'back-of-a-fag-packet solutions that crumble under the slightest scrutiny'.
She contrasted these with what she said was a series of family-friendly Labour policies, including the plan around 200 school-based nurseries to open in England from September, intended to accommodate 4,000 children under school age.
This will be expanded later in the school year to 300, adding to other measures aimed at helping parents such as free breakfast clubs, more free hours of childcare, an expansion of free school meals and a cap on school uniform costs.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
South Wales Guardian
26 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Lisa Nandy hits out at BBC leadership over Glastonbury live stream
The Culture Secretary said 'several' editorial failures 'becomes a problem of leadership', during a statement to the Commons on Monday. It came after rapper Bobby Vylan led crowds at the festival's West Holts Stage in chants of 'free, free Palestine' and 'death, death to the IDF (Israel Defence Forces)' on Saturday. Ms Nandy said the Government is 'exasperated' with the 'lack of account from the leadership', as MPs from across the chamber called for accountability. In a statement on the BBC and Glastonbury, she said 'problems with broadcasts' at the festival 'should have been foreseeable'. Labour MP Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) said: 'How are Jews such as myself, in this country, to be reassured about the editorial processes of the BBC? And who on Earth will be held accountable for this error?' Ms Nandy replied: 'He makes an extremely important point about accountability, and that is something that is not lost on me as the Secretary of State, and something that I've impressed upon the BBC leadership as well. 'When you have one editorial failure, it's something that must be gripped. When you have several, it becomes a problem of leadership.' Conservative former minister John Glen said: 'I think we all in this place understand the fine editorial judgments that the BBC and their staff have to make, but this is of a completely different order, and when people are losing faith in the great institutions of this country, could I urge the Secretary of State, in her follow-up conversations that … the BBC actually identified accountability to individuals?' He added: 'Somebody didn't follow that guidance, and I think the country expects people to be held individually to account for why they fail to do their job properly.' Ms Nandy replied: 'I think people do expect people to be held to account for the way that they do their jobs, be that on the front line or at senior levels. It's a point that I've made to the BBC. 'They will have heard what he said and what (Mr Prinsley) said as well about accountability, and it's a point that I will continue to press.' Jim Allister, TUV MP for North Antrim, described the live stream as 'an appalling pro-terrorist broadcast', adding: 'The BBC deliberately chose not to cut the broadcast, perhaps therefore it's time for Government to consider cutting the licence fee?' Ms Nandy replied: 'He will know that this Government supports the BBC. We believe it is an important institution. 'That is why we are so disappointed that this has happened, why we have been so exasperated with the lack of account from the leadership, not just about this, but about a previous Gaza documentary and a number of other issues as well. 'The BBC is one of the most important institutions in our country, and that is the reason why it is held to the highest of standards.' Conservative MP Dame Caroline Dinenage, who chairs the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, said: 'I wonder if the Secretary of State could say what explanation the BBC has given for why this live stream wasn't cut? 'Now it can't be for lack of staff on the ground. They took a reported 400 people to Glastonbury at the weekend. What were they all doing?' Ms Nandy replied: 'I think she's right to raise the question of what the number of staff who were present at the Glastonbury Festival, or working on the broadcast, were doing. 'But I do think this also raises very, very serious questions at the highest levels of the BBC about the operational oversight and the way in which editorial standards are understood and reflected in the decisions that are made by individual staff.' Shadow culture secretary Stuart Andrew called for an independent inquiry, claiming the BBC 'has repeatedly failed to call out antisemitic rhetoric, when it emerges under the guise of political commentary, and has faced serious allegations of minimising attacks on Jewish communities'. Ms Nandy replied: 'What I want to see from the BBC, and I know he shares this, is rapid action to make sure this cannot happen again.' She also claimed an Independent MP was 'aligning himself with antisemites'. Ayoub Khan, MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, had accused the Government of 'hypocrisy' because it did not make a statement when Israeli football fans 'were chanting 'death to all Arabs'' in November last year. Ms Nandy said she 'could not disagree more', adding: 'I think every member of this House will utterly condemn chants of 'death to all Arabs' – it's disgusting and disgraceful.' She continued: 'The reason I have brought a statement to the House today is because our national broadcaster, which is funded by the licence fee, which is paid by the public in this country, has broadcast something that is deeply, deeply offensive to a community in this country, that has made many, many people feel and may actually have made them unsafe. 'Can I just say to him that as a longstanding supporter of justice for the Palestinians, he does nothing for the Palestinian cause by aligning himself with antisemites.' In a point of order, Mr Khan said: 'At no stage have I said in my question or statement that I was aligning myself to anyone at that Glastonbury event.'
Leader Live
26 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
Hitting out at critics who argued the UK should ignore a legal ruling to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, Lord McDonald of Salford argued this was what 'the powerful and unprincipled do', such as Russia. The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.' Foreign minister Lord Collins of Highbury said the agreement secured the future of the military base and had the support of key allies. He told the chamber: 'This deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations, making sure that the United Kingdom retains the unique, important capabilities we need to deal with a range of threats in the months and years ahead.' Peers rejected by 205 votes to 185, majority 20, a Tory attempt to get the House to oppose the treaty's ratification, which would have forced the Government to make a statement on why the deal should still be approved.
South Wales Guardian
26 minutes ago
- South Wales Guardian
Chagos deal cost is ‘going rate for best defensive real estate', says ex-FO boss
Hitting out at critics who argued the UK should ignore a legal ruling to hand over the archipelago to Mauritius, Lord McDonald of Salford argued this was what 'the powerful and unprincipled do', such as Russia. The independent crossbencher, a former ambassador who headed the Foreign Office from 2015 to 2020, spoke in support of the agreement in the face of strong objections at Westminster, with opponents branding it a 'surrender' and 'gross folly' funded by the public. The deal signed last month after long-running negotiations, started under the previous Tory administration, returns sovereignty of the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, but will see Britain lease back the strategically important military base on Diego Garcia. It follows a 2019 advisory opinion by the International Court of Justice, which said the UK should cede control. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians expelled from the islands, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million annually during the duration of the 99-year agreement, a total cost in cash terms of at least £13 billion. The Government, however, estimates the bill will be lower at around £101 million a year, while critics argue it will be much higher. The deal could also be extended in the future for an extra 40 years, provided agreement is reached. In a recent report, the House of Lords International Agreements Committee (HLIAC) said although 'not perfect', the treaty must be ratified to avoid legal challenges that could threaten UK control of the military base. Its members warned Mauritius was 'likely' to resume its campaign to secure a binding judgment on sovereignty against Britain unless the agreement was approved and concluded the Government 'cannot ignore' the risk of an 'adverse ruling' putting Britain's right to run the joint UK-US site in jeopardy. Speaking at Westminster as peers debated the controversial accord, Lord McDonald said: 'The most damaging blow to any country's international reputation is a justified charge of hypocrisy. 'The United Kingdom stands for the rule of law in all circumstances. We lose credibility when we seek exceptions to this principle for ourselves.' He added: 'Opponents dislike the expense of the deal. 'Well, we're paying the going rate as a tenant for a base in the wider Indian Ocean, somewhat more than the French in Djibouti, but we're getting more for more. 'Diego Garcia is the best defensive real estate in the whole Indian Ocean. 'Even though £101 million per year is a lot, it's a lot less than the Americans pay to run the base. 'It's a joint base, and we're paying our way in the joint effort.' Lord McDonald also disputed the agreement would bolster China's presence in the Indian Ocean, arguing that 'our partner in Delhi looms much larger in Mauritian calculations than our challenger in Beijing'. He went on: 'Confronted by a charge of double standards, some opponents of this agreement shrug their shoulders. They think they can get away with it, tough it out. But that is what the powerful and unprincipled do. That is what Russia does.' The peer added: 'It gives the UK and our American allies a secure presence in the archipelago for the next 140 years. 'It enhances our security and restores our reputation as a country respecting international law, even when inconvenient and costly.' But Tory shadow foreign minister Lord Callanan said: 'This agreement amounts to a retreat, a surrender of sovereign territory that serves as a linchpin of our defence architecture at a time when authoritarian threats are rising and alliances matter more than ever. 'Handing control to a government who align themselves ever more closely with Beijing – a regime that actively undermines international norms and our national interests – is not only unwise, it is positively dangerous. 'To compound the error, the British taxpayer is being made to foot the bill.' He added: 'This whole affair has been a gross folly. There is no strategic gain here, no credible guarantee for the future of Diego Garcia and no reassurance for our allies. 'Instead, we send a message to adversaries and allies alike that British sovereignty is indeed negotiable. It is capitulation and we must reject it.' Pointing out the Tories in office had opened negotiations to cede sovereignty, Liberal Democrat Lord Purvis of Tweed said: 'The treaty is a consequence of now completing the previous Conservative government's policy.' Foreign minister Lord Collins of Highbury said the agreement secured the future of the military base and had the support of key allies. He told the chamber: 'This deal will protect the safety and security of the British people for generations, making sure that the United Kingdom retains the unique, important capabilities we need to deal with a range of threats in the months and years ahead.' Peers rejected by 205 votes to 185, majority 20, a Tory attempt to get the House to oppose the treaty's ratification, which would have forced the Government to make a statement on why the deal should still be approved.
