Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this Bill. It reminds me of that Frank Sinatra song about New York—so good they named it twice. The Bill has in effect been named twice, because it contains two very good and distinct parts, which merit being Bills in their own right. There are so many elements that I want to comment on, but through lack of time will not be able do more than namecheck some of them.

Keeping families together and making children safe should not even need stating as aims, but, sadly, of course, they do. Multi-agency protection teams will help to avoid children falling between the cracks in terms of the support that they require, but there needs to be clarity as to the difference between children in need and child protection.

The Bill has much to say that is positive on children in care, leaving care and kinship care. It has less to say on the value of fostering and nothing at all to say on adoption, which I do not understand. Children in foster care should have the same support to the age of 25 as those in residential care, but the Bill does not provide that. I believe it should.

Proposals for regulating unregistered children’s homes are most welcome—in fact, we might ask why there are such things as unregistered children’s homes at all—as is the provision for the excessive profits of private children’s homes to be capped.

Moving on to schools, I welcome enshrining in law the benefits of universal, free school breakfasts. However, there needs to be a guarantee that these can be effectively reached and support the most vulnerable pupils, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, for whom access to a nutritious start to the day can be life-changing.

On many occasions in your Lordships’ House, I have advocated a register of children not in school. Fundamentally, this is a safeguarding issue and it is one that Conservative Ministers, whom I faced at the Dispatch Box, consistently supported—I cite the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Barran and Lady Berridge; I cannot remember whether the noble Lord, Lord Nash, did or not, but I am sure he does from what he said—but nothing happened, and it has been left to a Labour Government to take it forward.

The clauses on academies have caused much frothing at the mouth on the Benches opposite. Of course, I understand that Tories want to defend their record on education, but that record is patchy. A Lords Library briefing reported in 2023 that data from Ofsted

“does not show that schools in MATs have better ratings than other types of school … On academic results the picture is mixed ... The percentage of pupils achieving the expected standard in reading, writing and maths was, on the whole, slightly higher in maintained schools than in MATs”.

I am concerned about the opposition to Clause 46 on the requirement for qualified teacher status. When I take my car to the garage for its MoT or go for dinner in a restaurant or go to the dentist with toothache, I do not expect to be treated by an enthusiastic amateur. While I respect the noble Baroness, Lady Wolf, and accept what she said, parents do not expect, when they send their children to school, that they will be taught by anyone other than a professional.

Guidance on developing a whole-school approach to mental health and wellbeing was introduced in 2015 and that guidance was updated six years later. But it lacks the statutory backing needed to make it effective, and I hope the Government will consider introducing an amendment that will provide for that.

Finally, I regret that the Bill has nothing to say on the inequality of selection. The 11-plus has been abolished in most parts of the UK for over 50 years, yet it is still inflicted on more than 100,000 10 year-olds in England each year, three quarters of whom are branded failures at that age, with predictable effects on their self-esteem, mental health and perhaps also their life chances. I am not calling for the banning of grammar schools, but they should certainly be banned from selecting their pupils.

I have no time to speak about inclusive school assemblies, UTCs or retaining the 50% cap on new faith schools, inter alia—pace the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare. I look forward to Committee, which will certainly be interesting and, I hope, productive.

Free School Meals

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make it more straightforward for parents to check their children’s eligibility for free school meals.

[The Minister of State, Department for Education (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)]

My Lords, we want to ensure that all families who need it get the support they are entitled to, which is why we make claiming free school meals simple through the provision of an eligibility checking system to local authorities to assess claims for meals. This system is being improved to allow parents to check their own eligibility for free meals, which has the potential to support more families in taking up their entitlement.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

I thank my noble friend for her Answer, but the bureaucracy involved in registering is proving a barrier for many families. As a result, a considerable number of children are losing out on the free school meals to which they are entitled; the current estimate is about a quarter of a million across England. Does my noble friend agree that this is not just about the children? Local authorities are losing out on the pupil premium that is triggered as soon as registration takes place, and these are vital funds for many schools. I am not asking for more money: the money is already in the system. Rather, I invite my noble friend to suggest how that money can be released as fully as it has been in the local authorities that have introduced automatic enrolment.