Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Friday 16th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)]

The noble Baroness, Lady Garden of Frognal, has withdrawn from this debate, so I call the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope I set out clearly at Second Reading the view of these Benches regarding the need for the Bill, and I have no intention of repeating what I said then. I would like just to recognise the valuable advice that the Children’s Society has continued to provide to myself and other noble Lords since Second Reading.

Since Second Reading we have also received the report by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships’ House. At paragraph 3 the committee draws attention to the fact that the Bill’s Explanatory Notes at paragraph 13 say that the Bill

“sets out who has to comply with the guidance”,

yet paragraph 12 of the Department for Education’s memorandum to the committee states that the Bill does not impose any particular course of action in terms of compliance. Can the Minister offer clarification as to the at least apparent discrepancy between these two statements?

The draft guidance is welcome, not least paragraph 15, which reminds schools that they should keep branded items to a minimum—although it would have been useful to have an indication of what is meant by a minimum. The guidance also refers at paragraph 39 to local authorities and multi-academy trusts providing school clothing grants to help with the cost of uniforms for less well-off families. That will prove a decisive factor in the Government being able to deliver on their aim of ensuring that disadvantaged parents are not disproportionately affected by the cost of school uniforms. What assurances will the Minister provide to noble Lords that local authorities and multi-academy trusts will be provided with additional funding, ideally ring-fenced, to accompany the new guidance in this regard? Also, on the subject of single-supplier contracts, can the Minister explain how the draft guidance will guarantee transparency in the operation of such contracts, and in particular that there is genuine competitive tendering?

At Second Reading, the Minister said that she

“would like to be in a position to issue the guidance this autumn”.—[Official Report, 19/3/21; col. 559.]

Can she be more specific today? I have always regarded September as autumn, but with schools usually returning in the first week of that month, that would mean the guidance not taking effect in time for the new school year. Although that would be unfortunate, it may be unavoidable, but can the Minister confirm that it will be possible for the guidance to begin to take effect during 2021-22 school year?

In helpful discussions that I and my noble friend Lady Lister had with the Schoolwear Association, it made it clear that it is seeking a period of 18 to 24 months before the guidance is fully operational. I am not alone in regarding that as excessive. Does the Minister agree that a backstop of September 2022 would be appropriate so as to ensure that families who have been hardest hit financially by the pandemic need not carry the unnecessary burden of excessive school uniform costs beyond that point?

The reason we are here at all today is that the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, has submitted his amendment, which he moved, typically, in terms as trenchant as those he used at Second Reading. Although, as he explained, he played no part in the committee’s deliberations, his amendment very much encompasses the considered view of the Bill as set out by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. At Second Reading the noble Lord sought both the publication of the draft guidance during consideration of the Bill and that it should be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The first of those has been met but the second has not—hence his amendment.

At Second Reading the noble Lord said:

“If something is important enough to be made statutory, it is important enough for Parliament to scrutinise it”.—[Official Report, 19/3/21; col. 550.]


In principle, I cannot disagree with that at all, and I would prefer that it were applied in the case of the Bill. However, I am afraid that the noble Lord cannot dismiss concerns that, were his amendment to pass, it would delay the Bill. He has acknowledged that fact, and I was very pleased to hear that. I am afraid that the Government would neither make time available to allow the other place to consider and debate the amendment and return the Bill to your Lordships’ House in the 10 sitting days that remain before Prorogation, nor, perhaps more importantly, include a similar Bill of their own in the Queen’s Speech next month.

The reason I am clear on that last point is that, despite the November 2015 HM Treasury document entitled A Better Deal, which stated that

“The government will ensure that parents and carers get the best value deals on school uniforms in England”,


nothing has happened to bring that about. In the subsequent five and a half years I have seen three Prime Ministers and three Queen’s Speeches, but nothing has been done to bring forward provisions such as those in the Bill we are discussing today. So I have little faith in the Government expending any more effort than they are demonstrating with this Bill—merely giving it a fair wind at a time when they do not have what they regard as more important business to schedule.

However, the focus must be on the Bill and it is important that it becomes law. That is why I was relieved to hear the noble Lord, Lord Blencathra, say that he does not intend to press his amendment. That will allow this important Bill to complete its journey to Royal Assent, and I, together with many young people and families, look forward to it coming fully into effect at the earliest possible date.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Faulkner of Worcester) (Lab)]

My Lords, I have received a request to speak after the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, from the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for doing as she typically does by responding in considered and detailed form to many of my questions and those of other noble Lords. I wonder whether she would elaborate on one point on school clothing grants; I mentioned that the guidance refers to it. Although she said the Government’s emphasis was on keeping down the price of uniforms themselves—I welcome that, of course—short of nationalising the Schoolwear Association and making it the single supplier for the whole country, I am not quite sure how the Government could achieve such an aim.

I am concerned that cash-strapped local authorities—and multi-academy trusts, which are also not exactly well off—will struggle to cope with the many responses from parents to schools in the wake of the Bill’s enactment, and with the highlighting of the availability of the grants. Will the Minister again consider providing additional resources to make sure that local authorities and MATs can meet the demands that come their way after the Bill is enacted? I am happy for her to write to me about this.

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

I will take the opportunity to write to the noble Lord. It is a matter for local authorities whether they choose to make grants available, but we are not proposing to introduce school uniform grants. As I have outlined many times to noble Lords, there has been an increase in general school funding over these three years to enable some schools that want to assist to do that. If the noble Lord requires any further details, I will write to him.

Initial Teacher Training Market Review

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 14th April 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the expertise of former members of the Armed Forces is an important supply for teacher training, and many initial teacher training providers do offer their courses part-time so current personnel can make that transition. In shortage subjects, such as chemistry, bursaries are available of £24,000.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, although the initial teacher training market review group has been meeting since the autumn, its deliberations have been shrouded in secrecy. What has leaked out is the suggestion that the Government will introduce a new system of short-term contracts following the review, which has led, as my noble friend Lord Knight has said, to many universities warning that they may withdraw their teacher training provision as a result. I welcome the Minister’s announcement just now of consultation later this year. Can she explain why the so-called expert advisory group undertaking it does not contain a representative from a university, despite that sector currently producing around one-third of newly qualified teachers?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, it is important that we conduct this review to ensure that the market provides for the 25% increase this year of those applying for initial teacher training. Professor Samantha Twiselton is actually on the staff of Sheffield Hallam University, and I can assure noble Lords that, as universities are involved in providing, I think, 47% of initial teacher training, they will of course be key in the review’s progress.

The Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 22nd March 2021 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie]

That this House takes note of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2021 (SI 2021/161).

Relevant document: 47th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, these regulations are the subject of a take-note Motion today for two reasons: first, due to the concerns expressed by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee in drawing the regulations to the special attention of the House over the need for the Government to introduce the additional protections for older children, to which they have committed, at the earliest opportunity; secondly, because we are extremely concerned by the decision contained in the regulations to prohibit the use of unregulated accommodation only for looked-after children aged 15 and younger, and not for children aged 16 and 17.

The regulations follow a DfE public consultation, begun in February last year, on regulating semi-independent and independent accommodation for children in care and care leavers. It appears to have been stimulated by the shocking revelations contained in the BBC “Newsnight” report, “Britain’s Hidden Children’s Homes”, in 2019.

Children’s homes should be a safe haven, but a decade of Conservative local authority cuts and poor regulation have left far too many children at risk of neglect and exploitation. The Government should have acted to protect children from increased threats during lockdown, but instead Ministers used the pandemic as an excuse to water down their rights—action which the courts subsequently found unlawful.

Now the DfE is about to consult on national standards for unregulated accommodation for 16 and 17 year-olds in care, intending that it should become regulated via an Ofsted-led registration and inspection scheme, though there has as yet been no indication what that might look like. The consultation did not mention that these standards would have to omit any requirement to provide care to 16 and 17 year-olds. However, that is what will happen, because establishments which provide children with care and accommodation must register as children’s homes and be inspected by Ofsted.

These regulations formally create a two-tier care system, which could lead to a situation where provision to children is based on age rather than need. In effect, it will reduce the leaving care age to 16. It might be imagined that the meaning of the legal term “in care” was beyond doubt, yet these regulations will legitimise the absence of care for 16 and 17 year-olds who are, I repeat, in care.

Six months ago, the Children’s Commissioner published a report on children in care living in unregulated accommodation that reiterated concerns about vulnerable children being exploited and abused. The commissioner recommended that the use of semi-independent and independent provision should be made unlawful for all children in care, stating unequivocally:

“No child under the age of 18 should be placed in an unregulated setting. All children aged under 18 should receive care, rather than support. As such, there should be a requirement that any setting they are placed in is regulated as a children’s home.”


Those are words that we fully and enthusiastically endorse. It would be instructive if the Minister would reveal the DfE’s view on which looked-after children it believes are able to manage without care; does it consider that an absence of care is legitimate for those children for whom a family court has made a care order? Further, in relation to the department’s assessment of how the under-16 ban may affect children aged 16 and 17, has the department undertaken equality and/or child rights impact assessments?

There is also the vital question of the safety of these young people, not an issue of which the DfE is unaware. Two months ago, in response to a freedom of information request by the children’s rights charity, Article 39, the department published data on children who have died or been seriously harmed following abuse or neglect within the family or other settings in what are termed “serious incident notifications”. These numbers may seem small in relation to the 6,480 16 and 17 year-olds recorded in March 2020 as living independently or semi-independently, but even one such case, be it harm, far less a death, is one too many. It is important to stress that under international law, a person under the age of 18 is regarded as a child. The same law pertains in this country.

As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee report points out, 73% of unregulated settings are privately run; that is to say, for profit. They are private companies doing very well out of vulnerable children without the checks and balances that are seen in other care settings. The financial opportunities available can attract entrants to the market with little or no knowledge of children’s care, with the result that in some settings, children are not kept safe. A number of children’s charities are capable of delivering, perhaps in conjunction with local authorities, proper care to 16 and 17 year-olds, were they not priced out of the market. I am not alone in believing that the care we are considering today is too important to be left to the vagaries of the market, but I know that the office of the new Children’s Commissioner is keen to explore that possibility with children’s charities. Will the Minister say whether the DfE will offer encouragement to them in such an approach?

The DfE maintains that there is a place for independent and semi-independent provision where it is of high quality and that such a placement is desired by the older child and would be consistent with their welfare. However, the evidence shows that these conditions are rarely met. As the Children’s Commissioner commented in the report to which I referred earlier, even the very few 16 and 17 year-olds who feel that they are ready to start becoming more independent are likely at some point to require assistance that meets the threshold for care rather than support, as the coronavirus crisis has demonstrated.

Anne Longfield also registered her particular concerns about the lack of resources available to many local authorities, which has caused a lack of sufficient places across the whole system. These issues were highlighted by the committee in its report, which said

“there is a risk of low-quality provision given the significant financial pressures on many local authorities and the considerable costs of high-quality support for children.”

The Government have just launched an independent review of the children’s social care system. It is essential that the review understands and addresses why increasing numbers of children are being placed in unregulated settings. I hope that it will conclude that every looked-after child should have the legal right to receive care until at least their 18th birthday.

Two weeks ago, it was announced that the Competition and Markets Authority is to undertake an inquiry into the supply, price, commissioning and regulation of children’s homes, fostering and unregulated accommodation placements, along with the environment for investing in services. Apparently, one of the questions it will consider is whether profits for private providers are at the expense of quality of care in the children’s social care market. That certainly is a question worth asking, although it does seem rather strange that the inquiry will take place in parallel with the independent review of children’s social care that has just begun. Can the Minister say how, if at all, the two might support each other?

In closing, I want to ask what the Minister and her department intend to do in respect of the five recommendations made by the Children’s Commissioner in her report last year. I have mentioned the questions of independent care for those aged under 18 being made illegal and the need to ensure quality for young people in unregulated settings. In addition, Anne Longfield called for urgent action to increase the capacity of care across the system, which is a fundamental issue. However, it comes down to an increase in resources, and for the Minister to point out, as I suspect she might, what has already been spent or committed is not enough. Considerably more resources must be made available to ensure adequate care and it is to be hoped that the independent review will not be constrained in its recommendations by an expectation that it can bring about substantial change within existing resources. That is not just a pipe dream—it would be a major failing of young people in care, whether they are above or below the age of 16. The committee’s report said

“we urge the House to seek assurance from the Minister that any legislation needed to introduce the additional protections for older children to which the Government have committed is introduced at the earliest opportunity.”

I now invite the Minister to do that and I look forward to her response. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, and the Minister for their contributions to this debate, which has been one of quality, if not quantity. I think that is due to the relatively short notice given. Others would have wanted to participate, and I hope they read the report of the debate with interest.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, made an important point about data not being readily available. He mentioned the research carried out by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner to find information that was not to hand. However, many children’s charities are also assiduous in collecting information that, I think it reasonable to say, we might have expected the Department for Education to have collected and made available.

I would like to echo the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, in paying tribute to those organisations that have prepared briefings for this debate, namely Article 39, Home for Good, Just for Kids Law and the Children’s Rights Alliance for England. Given that none of us, apart from Ministers, has personal support staff, the contribution of those and many other organisations in this and other debates in enabling the Government to be more effectively held to account should not be underestimated.

The noble Lord, Lord Russell, also mentioned the previous Children’s Commissioner’s recommendations and touched on one I was unable to mention because of the time limit. I am referring to the role of the independent reviewing officers, who oversee and scrutinise the care plans of children in care. The recommendation by the commissioner that independent reviewing officers should visit placements before children are placed there to assess their suitability is important, and I hope it will be adopted by the department.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, I have been encouraged by the remarks of the new Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, since she took up her post a few weeks ago, not least in relation to the children remaining in care until the age of 18. I have to say, in passing, that her predecessor set a high standard; I am hopeful that she will do the same, and I wish her well.

It was humbling to hear the Minister recount her personal experience of living independently at the age of 16. I cannot imagine what that must have been like. Clearly, it has not held her back. I would like to think that every other young person in that situation would emerge with such distinction. However, that is rarely the case, although, for many young people, remaining in care between the ages of 16 and 18 is often the crucial difference in enhancing their life chances.

The Minister’s response to the questions that I and others put to her were encouraging in some respects, but the regulations are another example of the Government managing a crisis and not finding a solution to it. I would like to think that we will look at a long-term plan whereby the children’s care sector is not just better resourced but better organised. I am hopeful the review that is under way will point in that direction, because these young people deserve better, and we can do better on their behalf.

Motion agreed.

Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, this is an important piece of legislation, because it concerns the welfare of children and young people. We fully support its aim of closing a loophole in safeguarding duties for post-16 academies and independent providers. We also welcome that the Government are solidly behind it, as set out clearly by the Minister, Gillian Keegan, in another place—a position that I have no doubt the Minister will emphasise today.

It is perhaps surprising not just that a loophole exists but that it went unnoticed for so long, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Great credit is due to the honourable Member for the City of Durham, Mary Kelly Foy, for her awareness of the issue and for seizing the initiative to fill the gap. It would have been preferable had it been undertaken by government, but I accept that that would have been difficult; after all, there has not been an education Bill of any sort since the Technical and Further Education Act 2017. Perhaps the upcoming Queen’s Speech will bring that barren spell to a close—we shall see. I commend my noble friend Lady Blower for taking up the mantle as this Bill makes its way through your Lordships’ House. She brings a wealth of experience in education to the task and she spoke with passion on behalf of the young people who come within the reach of the Bill at a crucial, perhaps even vulnerable, point in their lives: the bridge between childhood and adulthood.

Although there exists a statutory duty on schools, sixth forms and FE colleges to ensure that they safeguard and promote the welfare of the young people who are their students, this does not apply to 16 to 19 academies or independent training providers. These providers do have safeguarding requirements as a condition of the funding they receive but, for some reason, legal safeguarding duties do not apply in the same way as for an FE college or school—perhaps the Minister can say how that came about.

The statutory guidance that will be developed to cover all providers will introduce long-overdue consistency. It is more by luck than good judgment that the fact that not all students and apprentices have hitherto been provided with the same level of safeguarding has not been exposed and tested until now. It barely needs stating that parents, too, must have confidence that the education and training providers in whose care their children are placed afford an appropriate level of safeguarding and are clear about their responsibilities to these young people.

So much has changed since the Bill was launched a year ago, but one thing that has not is the enduring importance of apprenticeships and skills, particularly for 16 to 19 year-olds, who will form the workforce of the future. The Government’s White Paper launched in January had much to say about that agenda, putting colleges at the heart of post-16 skills. T-levels have come in for much criticism but I hope they are allowed to develop and play their role in enabling some redress in the imbalance between the so-called technical and academic routes open to young people pondering their career prospects. Though set in an educational environment, T-levels have a work focus and a link to developing skills.

It is essential that the working and studying environments that these young people enter offer safeguarding levels that are consistent, no matter whether the tuition is delivered by further education providers or independent learning providers. I say “young people” but, in many cases, they are children. I echo the point made by my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza: the Government really should consider whether children are adequately represented at Cabinet level. The call for the creation of a Cabinet post is something to which I hope the Minister will give a positive response in respect of the question from my noble friend Lady Massey.

There is every reason to believe that the Bill will achieve the consistency that many noble Lords referred to today. I hope the Minister is able to confirm that the amendments required to the guidance on keeping children safe in education will be swiftly introduced, so that the uncertainty that the Bill has highlighted will become a thing of the past.

Education (Guidance about Costs of School Uniforms) Bill

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an excellent debate on a Bill that is timely, and not simply because the current non-statutory guidance is now eight years old. It is needed because far too many families—many more than when the Bill began its parliamentary journey a year ago—are experiencing financial pressures of all kinds. The cost of sending their children to school adequately clothed should not be one of them.

I commend my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for her opening speech and for picking up the baton to ensure that the Bill moves through your Lordships’ House as smoothly as possible.

The current guidance states that schools should give the highest priority to the consideration of cost and value for money for parents, but evidence shows that, in too many cases, that simply is not happening. School uniforms are important in promoting school unity and a positive ethos while also acting as a leveller. Yet current school uniform policies too often let down the most disadvantaged pupils.

I should declare an interest on behalf of my son, whose branded school uniform—as is the case for all maintained schools in the London borough where we live—has but one supplier. That is the source of many complaints from parents, on the grounds not so much of cost, I have to say, but of availability. The start of the school year often seems to take the supplier by surprise because the new term has usually started before it is able to deliver all the uniforms that have been ordered. However, I should say that, today, no uniform is required: to mark Red Nose Day, all children are wearing an item in that colour.

I do not often disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, but I must on this occasion. I am a firm advocate of uniforms, which can and should make children feel equal to their peers. They also remove pressures to flaunt the latest and often expensive label or brand of clothes or shoes. Yet they are not cheap. My noble friend Lady Lister quoted research released last week by the Children’s Society that showed that parents spend in excess of £300 a year on school uniforms for each child. The Children’s Society also found that some parents choose a school based on the cost of the uniform, particularly where PE and sports kits are concerned. Families should never be put in that position. That survey of 1,000 parents also found—as other noble Lords have said—that nearly a quarter said that the cost of school uniforms meant that their child had worn ill fitting or incorrect uniform. So much for being equal to their peers.

Compulsory branded clothing is the major contributing factor to the high costs of school uniforms, often meaning that families can buy uniforms from only one supplier. It is a basic rule of economics that exclusive suppliers raise the cost of whatever they sell, and that holds for school uniforms, even where a tendering process has been carried out. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hain, the noble Baroness, Lady Wheatcroft, and several other noble Lords that the Bill would have had greater effect had single suppliers been precluded—although, had that been the case, I doubt it would have progressed to this stage.

In November 2015, the Government published A Better Deal, which included a commitment to put the Department for Education’s existing school uniform guidance on costs on a statutory footing, stating:

“The government wants to ensure that effective competition is used to drive better value for money and will therefore put existing best practice guidance for school uniform supply in England on a statutory footing.”


So why continue to allow exclusive providers?

In September 2019, the noble Lord, Lord Tyrie, wrote to the DfE in his role as chair of the Competition and Markets Authority, urging it to introduce legislation requiring schools to allow parents to shop around rather than insisting on a single supplier, after the CMA received an influx of complaints from parents on the issue that summer. The department responded, stating that the Government would put the legislation on a statutory footing

“when a suitable opportunity arises”,

although it did not commit to ending single suppliers. In that same month of September 2019, when giving evidence to the Work and Pensions Committee, the then Education Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, said that

“there is a specific problem of a relatively small number of schools who use this requirement of monopoly suppliers for uniforms. I do not like it, because it is a pernicious way of excluding children from less well-off backgrounds.”

I cannot avoid asking the Minister whether she agrees with her predecessor.

Finally, the Bill’s Explanatory Notes state that the Bill

“will come into force two months after the day on which it is passed.”

In briefings to noble Lords, both the Local Government Association and the Schoolwear Association have pressed for a delay. I do not advocate a delay as such, because parents should have protection as soon as is practical, but a phased introduction, as suggested by my noble friend Lady Lister, would allow parents to make full use of existing uniforms and allow them and suppliers to plan properly for the introduction of new ones.

Statutory guidance is required, and we have no wish to see the Bill delayed. I look forward to assisting in it reaching the statute book by the end of the current Session, which we now understand means the end of next month.

Modern Foreign Languages: Teachers

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Wednesday 10th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to retention, I have outlined the early career framework, but there are now national professional qualifications. On average, teachers were awarded a 2.7% pay rise last year. As I have outlined, teachers from across the world can now apply on a points-based system to come here. We recognise that there is considerable uncertainty due to current restrictions on international travel.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister stated in answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, that the slashing of bursaries for language trainees from £26,000 to £10,000 was the result of what she called “difficult financial decisions”. That cut makes no sense. The bursaries should have been retained as the result of an educational decision. There is a pattern here: the latest figures for the recruitment of language teachers showed that only 72% of the target was met, yet the DfE is ending its system of early career payments of up to £3,000, which were aimed at aiding teacher retention. As our distance from the EU grows, how can the Government justify making a career as a language teacher less attractive?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, in relation to the applicants we have seen this year, modern foreign language teaching is an attractive option in our country. We had to make some difficult choices. STEM graduates command higher salaries outside the teaching sector, which was the justification for retaining a similar level of bursary for STEM as opposed to MFL. Other initial financial incentives, such as student loan reimbursements, are retained for those who are already part of the scheme, but they were ended for all—including STEM—graduates. There were difficult decisions to be made across the board.

Covid-19: Care System

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 8th March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, the Government are indeed concerned about those who end up in the youth justice system and their education. The noble Lord will be aware of the provision in secure children’s homes, where young people are placed by the local authority or through the criminal justice system. He will be pleased to hear that when Ofsted recently inspected some of those homes, it commented positively about the provision of education for that cohort of vulnerable young people.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the Children’s Commissioner reported in 2019 that teenagers in care are significantly more vulnerable than younger children to issues such as child sexual exploitation, gangs and trafficking. She also called for a ban on any child under the age of 18 being placed in an unregulated setting. Last week, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships’ House expressed concern about older teenagers being left exposed in such settings. Teenagers in care are more likely to have complex needs and therefore require care rather than just support. Can the Minister say why unregulated accommodation is unregulated? Why do the Government believe that it can ever be appropriate for vulnerable young people to be placed in such accommodation?

[Baroness Berridge (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me if I stated this incorrectly: it is going to be banned for those aged 16 and under but still used, when assessed as appropriate by the local authority, for those aged over 16. There will, however, be national minimum standards for that provision, which is currently unregulated, to ensure that the standard is appropriate. Those with complex needs were, as vulnerable children and young people, offered a school place throughout the pandemic. We are looking to increase Ofsted’s enforcement powers in relation to unregistered children’s homes.

Education Return and Awarding Qualifications in 2021

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 1st March 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)]

My Lords, it is fitting that the Statement emphasises the tremendous efforts of all staff in schools and colleges who have made schools as safe as they can be, at some risk to themselves. I echo these sentiments.

It was obvious before Christmas that there were likely to be problems with grades. Indeed, I and other noble Lords said as much when the ministerial Statement on exams and accountability came to your Lordships’ House on 8 December. Why did the Government sit on their hands and pretend otherwise until it was too late to come up with a genuinely robust proposal? Can the Minister explain why, despite schools closing at the start of January, exam board guidance will not be available until the end of March? That simply increases the uncertainty and anxiety already widely experienced by students, parents and teachers. The proposals for checking and confirming teachers’ grades seem flimsy. It would have been possible to build in much more comprehensive moderation arrangements between schools, using the skills of experienced examiners and exam markers. Without this, there can be no guarantee of consistency and fairness. There is surely a risk that the rigorous will lose out, compared to the less rigorous.

There is also a serious risk that schools, colleges and teachers will be exposed to unreasonable pressure to give students the grades they—or their parents—expect. It must be made clear and emphasised that exam boards, not schools, are responsible for issuing grades and appeals. As things stand, it seems that a school can appeal against a grade awarded by one of its own teachers. This is awkward, to say the least.

The likely volume of appeals and disputes will also present a capacity issue. How can the Government guarantee that the system will be able to cope with these pressures? Faith in the proposals has hardly been enhanced by the very public resignation of Sir Jon Coles from the Ofqual recovery committee just as the new measures were being announced. He was a former DfE director-general and the department’s own nominee to the Ofqual committee. What does this say about the robustness of these proposals?

I turn to the return of schools and colleges. During the first week back, they will be required to carry out three tests for each of the 3.4 million secondary-age pupils. Many schools have lost income or face higher costs because of the pandemic. What support and resources will the Government make available for schools and colleges to deliver the testing, including additional financial support?

In January, the Secretary of State said that he wanted school staff to be in the next wave of vaccinations. Yet, despite the obvious benefits this brings in facilitating the return to school, there has been no commitment since to prioritising school staff. Do the Government no longer believe that teaching staff should be a priority?

Finally, 8 March is also the date on which independent training providers are expected to have the majority of apprentices and trainees back on site. ITPs and their learners seem to be at the back of the queue for receiving Covid home-testing kits. The Association of Employment and Learning Providers says that a general rollout is not expected before April. This cohort includes high levels of vulnerable and disadvantaged learners who are more likely to be affected by Covid-19. It is unacceptable that they should be doubly disadvantaged by a lack of access to testing. Many have little or no access to the technology needed for remote learning, so anything that delays their return to classroom delivery is damaging.

There is an obligation on training providers and employers to provide a safe environment before learning can resume. Already, providers are concerned that they are potentially leaving themselves open to legal action. Can the Minister explain what providers are meant to do in these circumstances?

We all want not simply to see schools and training facilities fully reopened but for it to take place on a sustainable basis. This requires a creditable system, underwritten by a plan B. If the Government have learned anything during the last 12 months, it is surely that a fallback position is necessary to take account of fast-changing events. This Government have been characterised throughout the pandemic by indecision and U-turns. This has had a particularly damaging effect on young people seeking to gain the education and qualifications that will prepare them for the world of work. How can the Minister guarantee that the measures outlined in the Statement will offer a more certain way forward for students, parents and teachers?

[Lord Storey (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for this Statement. The last 12 months have been like a giant wrecking ball for the education of our children. We welcome the reopening of schools and the Covid measures that the Government have put in place, but we have consistently argued that individual schools are best placed to respond to their circumstances. We should give head teachers the flexibility to know how to operate their schools safely.

We welcome that Sir Kevan Collins will work on the recovery plan, crucially together with teachers, schools and parents. It is important that we get this right. Each child’s circumstances vary enormously. The learning gap has widened. Today, the Education Policy Institute has reported that sixth-form and college students from poorer homes find themselves about three A-level grades behind their more affluent colleagues. A few extra lessons of catch-up will not compensate for a year’s loss of mainstream education. We need a rigorous and far-reaching plan to ensure that nobody is left behind. I am surprised that there is no mention in the Statement either of additional support for the well-being and mental health of children, or of children with special educational needs.

I turn to this summer’s exams. Thank goodness that there will not be assessment by algorithm. It is right to have teacher assessment. The amount of learning and study that each pupil has been able to access will vary enormously. Teacher assessment is the only fair way to understand individual pupils’ circumstances and learning. Can the Minister confirm that there will be no school league tables of results? Why not use a more broadly based quality assurance model rather than relying on random sampling? I am sure the Minister is concerned about grade inflation. What plans do the Government have to reverse it?

Finally, how will home-educated children and older adults be assessed for GCSEs and A-levels? I am sorry to spring that question on the Minister. If she does not know the answer, perhaps she could write to me.

Teachers and support staff have worked flat out to keep school learning on the road. We owe our school staff a huge debt of thanks for their dedication and professionalism.

Schools: Online Learning

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, as I outlined, we are aware of the connectivity issues for various homes and schools and have provided peer-to-peer training and support across the school system through our EdTech demonstrator schools. Some 6,900 schools have been given access by the department to Microsoft Education or Google Classroom during the pandemic. In building our infrastructure in future, as the noble Baroness described, connectivity will be essential.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, in response to an Oral Question from my noble friend Lord Blunkett on 11 February, the Minister stated, as she did earlier today, that the Government had invested

“more than £400 million to support access to remote education … including … 1.3 million laptops and tablets for disadvantaged children and young people.”

While that is certainly welcome, she did not answer the specific Question asked by my noble friend regarding

“the number of children who are not eligible for face-to-face teaching who have not been able to access online teaching for more than 80 per cent of the normal timetable in … 2021.”—[Official Report, 11/2/21; cols. 484-5.]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to answer that Question?

[Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]]

The instruction given to schools on the amount of remote education also included that teachers were to monitor whether children were engaging with that education. It is not possible for the department to collect that kind of granular data on a day-to-day basis. Teachers are in front of the students virtually and we put the obligation on them to monitor that. If they were aware that children were not engaging remotely, they had the ability to bring them into school as a vulnerable child.

Education: Supply Teachers

Lord Watson of Invergowrie Excerpts

Monday 22nd February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]]

My Lords, we trust school leaders to make workforce arrangements. Some schools, particularly multi-academy trusts, choose to employ supply teachers and some local authorities still run a pool supply service. As I have outlined, the agency supply deal means that there is transparency of fees and the arrangements are clear to schools, particularly when a teacher goes from a 12-week period of being temporary to being entitled to be permanent. So there is transparency—113 agencies have signed up to this deal, which we have made available to schools to help them to buy well and ensure the necessary transparency.

[Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab) [V]]

My Lords, the DfE has issued advice to schools not to lay off supply staff and to ensure that safety arrangements allow them to continue to be employed where needed. This has not prevented some schools from dispensing with supply teachers, placing additional pressure on permanent staff to cover for absent colleagues. The DfE advice is aimed equally at schools that engage staff directly and those that engage via agencies. The principle is the same—they should continue to employ and continue to pay—but there is no means of enforcement. Will the DfE now re-emphasise its advice to schools not to lay off supply staff?

[Baroness Berridge (Con) [V]]

The noble Lord is correct that the school budgets that have been paid regardless of the opening or closing of schools mean that those supply staff who are direct employees should continue to be employed during this period. However, for those who are employed by agencies, the guidance is for schools to try to continue to use those supply teachers, but of course the employer is the agency. If those supply teachers are not used, there is the possibility of furlough, but that is obviously a decision for the employers. We have made a wide range of support available for agency supply teachers, but the arrangements obviously depend on whether they are a direct employee of the school or from an agency. The guidance helps schools to treat their workforce fairly.