Children’s Social Care

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Thursday 30th October 2025 Westminster Hall

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq.

I thank and commend my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), the chair of the Education Committee, for leading the inquiry, securing the debate and making an incredibly powerful case as to why, particularly as we begin National Care Leavers Month, we must see action on children’s social care.

I welcome the Minister to his role, commend his work on the independent review of children’s social care, and congratulate him on being in the most powerful position possible to deliver on something that, tragically, was shelved for several years, until the new Government picked it up.

I am not only a proud member of the Committee that carried out this work, but as some know, I have a particular interest in this issue. For a number of years before being elected to this place, I was the cabinet member for children’s services and education in Southampton City Council. With help from many others, I tried to transform services that literally had life or death consequences for many children. It was a pleasure to do that, because I was once there myself: I grew up in foster care, and happily I was adopted. I am a big advocate of the life-transforming difference that the right care at the right time in the right circumstances can make, because had that not been the case for me, thanks to my parents, social workers and others along the way who made decisions on my behalf, I would not be standing here today.

In my maiden speech, I said that, of the many things we get involved with in Parliament, the one thing I want to do is be able to say to those to whom this report speaks, whose lives and circumstances it seeks to make better—those who are going through some of the most challenging times in life, who suffer the stigma of still being more likely to end up in prison than in university or in this place—that we will ensure they have the right support. I want that experience to forge in them a steely determination to achieve their full potential. Many of these recommendations are in that vein.

I was proud to bring a group of care leavers to Parliament earlier this week. I thank the Minister again for making time at the last moment, with no notice, to meet them, so that they could share their aspirations. Their voices were not only heard in this place; they went to the very heart of decision making—the Department for Education.

I want to talk about three key issues: the importance of getting early intervention right, foster carers, and care leavers themselves. The Government have committed to early intervention and help. In Southampton, I saw the power of shifting from reactive services to preventive services, with early help and intervention. That can reduce the number of children entering care, the amount of time they spend in care, and the damaging impact that being in care for too long can have. For many, it turns them around. Unfortunately, the damage can be compounded by the experience of care, so there is a great need for support. I think I am preaching to the choir when I say that early intervention is absolutely key.

The Government’s response points to the existing grants and the local government finance settlement, which deals with some early interventions, particularly around things such as housing support. Will the Minister please say a bit more about the conversations he is having with MHCLG ministerial colleagues? Will he ensure we seize the opportunity to make a difference? When council funding is announced later in the year, it will be welcomed not only by cabinet members like I was, leaders in this area and people who work in it, but most importantly by young people themselves, who will see that we are taking this issue seriously.

On the recruitment and retention of foster carers, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood made a powerful case setting out why what we are doing is not working. We need to do more. I believe that a national fostering strategy is needed to bring together the good will and the good practice. We know that there are pockets of excellence across the country, and there moments when a particular campaign works well. In Southampton, we were delighted to have one of our former Saints players engage with us on this issue—we could at least win at something, even if it was not football in that season. That joint working to promote the benefits not just to children, but to families who welcome young people into their homes for however long is needed, was a real success. None the less, recruitment numbers go up and down, and I am sure that is replicated across the country.

I hope the Minister will take on board the need to consider again a national fostering strategy that is properly resourced and brings together the comprehensive measures needed for progress. That would help to bring clarity and far greater awareness of the current crisis, and crucially, it would bring hope. As I believe the Minister said the other day, we want there to be choice. We cannot simply say, “Well, we have a foster carer, but they happen to be 20 or 30 miles away and that is the best fit we can get for an individual.” I think we know that we can and should be doing better than that.

On care leavers, our report concluded that it is rightly absolutely unacceptable that young people are left to support themselves financially when they turn 18, particularly if they are in full-time education and have to face either reducing time spent in education or dropping out completely to support themselves. I do not know if anyone has read the book by Ashley John-Baptise about the decision he faced almost 20 years ago either to accept a property that a council had finally been able to offer him as a care leaver, or to take up his place at university. That is not a position we want anyone to be in. Thankfully, the intervention of an MP at that point made a difference. The system should be making the difference, not forcing young people to choose between opportunities that, in most cases, those who are not care-experienced would not even have to consider.

There are things that no responsible parent would allow, and the state—councils—are in loco parentis. Therefore, as this Government are committed to breaking down barriers to opportunity, we must keep the most life-changing opportunity, education, open to all care-experienced young people. Where finance is the barrier, we need to remove that, and where the risk of a placement breakdown is a barrier, we must get extra support for stability. As has been recommended, we need to look at extending corporate parenting to all public bodies that are required to support our children in care. A national care leaver offer, as in recommendation 75, should still be on the table; it would go hand in hand with the local care leaver offer that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is bringing in.

As argued strongly by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank), designating care experience a protected characteristic is another tool in our box that we could use to make a difference for children and young people. That is recommendation 78, and I would be grateful if the Minister elaborated on what the Government are doing there. Work is ongoing in Parliament, and the hon. Member for Dundee Central (Chris Law), Baroness Longfield and activists such as Terry Galloway and Chris Wild are working on it. We would be pleased to meet with the Minister on an ongoing basis to ensure that we are working towards it.

Finally, I will list a few of the things that Atlas, Mac, Ethan and George told us when they visited this week about what would make a difference to their experience of being in social care, and in particular leaving social care. They are asking for more funding and focus on mental health and wellbeing. That is in recommendation 49. We know that child and adolescent mental health services are in a poor state, whether someone has been in care or not, and urgently need to be fixed. The Government said in their response that they will take a multidisciplinary approach and that they will review statutory guidance. Can the Minister say when we can expect that? The crisis is ongoing. We cannot continue to wait much longer.

Children want more placements closer to home. They want that stability. They want more affordable housing. As has already been outlined, that speaks to the wider challenges in society that the Government have to tackle: child poverty, relieving financial pressures on families, and having better support for parents, which we know will be given through the new Best Start family hubs.

I am glad that parental pay and parental leave are under review so that in the earliest, most crucial days we might see stronger bonds in children. For some, that may remove the likelihood that they have to go into care. There are risks outside the home that we need to fix, and there are risks in the home such as social media and smartphones. Many things impact the stability of our young people’s experience, particularly when they go on to leave care. We need training and experience for the young people themselves, but young people told us that they also want their social workers to be as well trained as possible. Some of them want someone, as they put it, a bit older. They probably mean someone with the deep experience to be able to coach them through the upheaval that many of them face, particularly as they become independent. They want to feel like they are part of a normal family, as much as possible.

I again commend the Chair of the Education Committee for leading this inquiry. It was the first priority of the new Committee. I ask the Minister to make it clear to us and, more importantly, to foster families, to children who are care-experienced, and to those who are leaving care that it is the first priority of this Government. I welcome the many responses that have reassured us of that commitment to make change happen where it is desperately needed, but the Government must not allow this to be a wait and see moment. The Minister must assure us that decisive action will be taken on those recommendations because, as the Chair of the Committee has said, he will be able to count on the Committee’s full support if he does.

Early Education and Childcare

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

As I mentioned earlier, £8 billion will be spent on the entitlement offer this year, increasing to £9 billion next year. The core funding rates do include forecasts around earnings, inflation and increases to the national living wage, but as I mentioned, we will review the funding distribution in due course and will consult on that formally.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement. As schools and early years providers start the new term across Southampton this week, we have two new nurseries—at St Mary’s Church of England primary school and at Valentine primary school—which will add to that provision thanks to the investment of this Labour Government. That is going to make an enormous difference to families in an area where one in four children are growing up in low-income families. Will the Minister join me in thanking everyone working across all Southampton early years settings to give children the best start in life, and in urging parents to ensure that they take this support and all the other support that has been mentioned that is also being delivered by this Government?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend from along the south coast for his question. I know that Portsmouth football club are very much looking forward to playing Southampton this season. We promised to make childcare more affordable and we are delivering on that. I pay tribute to him and the work that he did in local government, and is now doing in this place, to ensure that childcare is more affordable and accessible for children in his constituency.

Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Wednesday 16th July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Gentleman is completely right, and it is not the first time—it is generally the case that no one from Reform is present. On this issue, I am afraid that Reform MPs are chronically absent, as we say in education.

I will continue with my theme. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that the huge difference in performance, and the divergence in performance, between England and Wales cannot be explained by poverty rates or ethnicity. It is to do with the reforms that were not undertaken because of trade union pressure in Wales.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I agree that it is crucial to measure the progress of our children in key subjects to give them the best opportunities in life, but does the shadow Minister not accept, as I and many others do, that the climb up the international league tables was caused by restricting the breadth of the curriculum? That has come at the detriment of many opportunities for children over recent years.

[Neil O’Brien]

I do not think that is true. Looking at the evidence pack produced by the Government’s curriculum review, it is clear that some of the arguments are overstated. It is true that we reversed the decline in the number of young people taking double and triple science; that had been falling for years, and it went back up again because there was more focus on science. It is true that there are a limited number of hours in the school day, but I do not accept that we had some sort of Gradgrindian educational agenda. There continues to be a broad and balanced agenda. If Labour Members want to say that much more time should be spent on a particular subject, they should at least be clear about where it will come from.

Children in England were ranked the best in maths in the whole western world in the 2023 trends in international mathematics and science study, and they moved into the top five in the global rankings for science. What happened in Wales and Scotland? We do not know, as their Administrations removed themselves from those competitions because they do not like accountability. It is the same at all levels.

Whereas we favoured parental choice and autonomy for schools, balanced by strong accountability, the current Government take a very different approach. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which is currently in the Lords, dilutes parental choice, and it gives local politicians more control over pupil numbers for the first time since 1988. The greater autonomy for schools that we brought in has been replaced by a tide of micromanagement of curriculum and staff, and the absurd situation where if someone wants to put up a bicycle shed they have to apply to the Secretary of State. On the other hand, the ultimate form of accountability—placing schools under new management via academy orders—is being slowed down and stopped, which has been criticised even by Labour MPs such as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh).

The Labour party’s attempts to mess around with Ofsted to please the trade unions have watered down accountability for parents and made things more complicated, but they have not made anybody happy; nobody is happy with what has been proposed in the end. The Government have axed all the forms of support that we were making available to schools for subjects from advanced physics to maths, Latin and advanced computing—they think they are elitist. They have also axed the behaviour hubs, even though there is clear evidence that they were working and schools that went through them were twice as likely to be good or outstanding afterwards. The reform agenda is just not there.

At one point, the Government’s big answer was that they were going to employ 6,500 more teachers: they were going to increase VAT and employ all these extra teachers. The Chancellor said at the end of last year that every single penny of that VAT increase would go to education, but then, confusingly, the Prime Minister said that the money had been spent on social housing instead. It has been a long time since I studied formal logic, but we cannot spend every single penny on education and also spend that money on housing; we cannot spend it on two things. As it happens, we now know that actually there are not those extra teachers; there are 400 fewer teachers. We added 27,000 teachers under the last Government and under Labour there are 400 fewer teachers.

At the point when the numbers came out showing that there were fewer teachers, the Government suddenly declared that primary school teachers do not count—that the fall of 2,900 in primary school teacher numbers did not count. Ministers implied that that had always been their intention—they said, “How dare you say that wasn’t our intention?”—but they announced this policy in a primary school, and they said they would hit their targets for early years through an increase in primary. Now they say, “Oh, numbers are falling in primary,” but numbers are falling by a lot less than when they made the pledge in the updated forecast. If we apply the same logic, half of secondary schools have falling numbers, so perhaps that will be the next way they try to monkey around with the numbers to pretend that the opposite is happening. I would not mind so much if we did not get these chirpy press releases from the Department saying, “We’re doing so well; we’ve got all these extra teachers.” There are fewer teachers—that is the bottom line in what has happened here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), although I feel I am breaking a run of excellent speeches from the Staffordshire massive. I very much welcome this debate on giving every child the best start in life. I think one thing we can agree on across all the Benches is that that is not just the title of the debate, but a moral duty. It is the measure of a Government’s values, and it is also the foundation of a thriving and fair society.

In my constituency of Southampton Itchen, the unfortunate truth is that too many children are still being held back—not by the lack of potential, but by the lack of opportunity. It is high time that that changed, and I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are making that change happen. My constituency is in the much vaunted London and the south-east, which we usually hear about for its wealth and prosperity, but the reality is often different in Thornhill and Weston, where one child in every three is growing up in poverty. That is not the picture of wealth that we are often lumped in with. Many children arrive at school already behind in language, health or emotional development.

There are dedicated teachers and early years professionals who do everything they can. I pay tribute to all those I have met and worked with over a number of years, first as a councillor and then in the past year as an MP visiting schools. I do not face the same height challenge as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central when visiting those schools—indeed, in some secondary schools the pupils are taller than me these days. Dedicated teachers and professionals—I know colleagues across the Chamber will also be meeting them—are working against a legacy of underfunding and fragmentation of services.

That is why I welcome the Labour Government’s plan for change and our focus on a number of policies that will help to give every child the best start in life. They include: expanding high-quality early years education; the new nursery places for children aged two to four; and the schools-based nurseries in my constituency launched at St Mary’s Church of England primary school and at Valentine primary school. I am grateful to see policies like the rolling out of free breakfast clubs in every primary school. The pilots established at St John’s primary and nursery school and St Patrick’s Catholic primary school are hugely welcome. I have visited and helped to serve breakfasts to the children. I have seen the benefits they are already enjoying of a solid start to the day. Yes, that is through the food, but also through socialising, being with their friends and getting ready to learn.

[Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. As a fellow southern MP, I share his concern about the importance of explaining that there is real poverty across the south of England, as well as in many other parts of the country. He makes a point about the breakfast clubs, which are outstanding and he is right to say how valuable they are on a number of fronts. We have two in Reading. My fellow Reading MPs and I are very proud of them and we look forward to seeing more soon.

[Darren Paffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and I wish him every success in his constituency with the pilot breakfast clubs.

We have all welcomed in the last week a restoring—let us be honest—of Sure Start-style family hubs which will provide wraparound support for parents. From the hubs I have seen in my constituency over recent years—I know that work will build back up again—the potential for mental health support, childcare advice, toy libraries and work support are all there in those places.

[Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is setting out, in a very eloquent way, the amazing work of the Labour Government. I am proud—I hope he agrees—of the previous Labour Government’s achievements in setting up and rolling out Sure Start. Independent research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies showed what amazing outcomes children had later in life, with higher GCSE scores, reduced hospital admissions, improved physical health, the early identification of special needs, maternal employment and better mental health outcomes. I hope we will see the same from the new Best Start family hubs, too.

[Darren Paffey]

My hon. Friend paints the picture of the crowning glory of the previous Labour Government, in the Sure Start centres, not just because they were a nice feelgood thing but because of the strong evidence of the benefits they brought. What a disgrace that year after year the Conservatives cut council budgets and shut those very centres. Despite Tory austerity that hit Southampton hard—we lost 60% of our Government grant at Southampton city council—we made the often tough decision financially but the right decision in purpose, to keep those buildings open across the city, because they were crucial centres of support for local families.

I cannot pretend that the range of services offered in those centres was the same as it was a quarter of a century ago when the previous Labour Government set them up under our admired and much-missed colleague, Tessa Jowell, but those buildings still served a purpose. That meant that when the Conservative Government, having shut so many Sure Start centres, experienced an amazing epiphany—a revelation that, actually, they were a really good idea—and reinvented them under the badge of family hubs, our former Sure Start centres were there and ready to be built back up again. I would gently remind the shadow Minister that the family hubs, while welcome, were not new, either. In the lost years between those Conservative budget cuts to children’s services and their later U-turn, far too many families in my constituency and across the country were left without those crucial services.

The Government are also investing in school improvement, particularly in areas with long-standing underachievement and where attainment gaps have remained stubborn. My view is that the upcoming curriculum and assessment review is a huge opportunity to introduce a refreshed and inspiring curriculum with manageable assessments, rather than over-assessment and high-stakes exams, and links to exciting training opportunities in the reality of jobs in the 21st century economy into the future.

As other hon. Members have said, the special educational needs and disabilities system is absolutely broken. I commend the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who is no longer in her place, for leading our Committee’s inquiry on this subject. As I am sure is the case for other Members, I hear a lot from constituents in surgeries and through my inbox about situations that are in many cases avoidable, and which we must certainly work hard to avoid in the future, with children’s needs not being met because of a system that needs to be fundamentally rebuilt, described by its own architects as “lose, lose, lose”. A reformed SEND system must give every child the support they need to access school and ensure they are not excluded from the potential for success in life that every single child deserves and is capable of.

Numerous schools have fantastic and innovative practices going on, including Bitterne Park secondary school, which I visited last week, which is establishing a variety of units, specialist rooms and particular provisions within the mainstream, working towards a truly inclusive school. In reforming the SEND system—I do not underestimate or envy the task of my hon. Friends on the Front Bench here—I have asked Ministers to consider how we can scale up the good practice in many of our constituencies to end the postcode lottery and guarantee consistency across our country. These are the kinds of policies that have been announced—these are the building blocks of a much better future for children in my constituency and across the country.

If we are serious about change, we must not only welcome and consolidate the significant changes this Government are making, but commit to continual improvement. In the wind-up, I ask the Minister to address the Government’s commitment to prioritising areas like Southampton Itchen. As I have said, we may be located in the south—often assumed wrongly to be a magnet for wealth—but child poverty is entrenched and multi-generational. We must not have a blind spot to need that is based on geographical assumptions.

Will Ministers ensure that our new Best Start family hubs are truly integrated with schools, NHS services and local councils so that they do not simply replicate past silos? Will Ministers also guarantee long-term funding? I think I know the answer, but it is always worth asking. Long-term funding that goes beyond a single Parliament—the Prime Minister has spoken for a long time now about a decade of national renewal—is not just desirable, but absolutely necessary. We need investment that ensures change is deep, not just fast.

Will Ministers have regard to support for the families that children are growing up in? We have heard from hon. Members about better parental leave. I commend the work of The Dad Shift, among others, in raising awareness of that issue.

Will Ministers also ensure that they look well down the line to not just the early years, which are a crucial foundation, but the years ahead? We must ensure that our children and young people who grow up in care have long-lasting support to thrive in life, guaranteed by meaningful and strong corporate parenting responsibilities in our public services and a national care leaver offer to close the attainment gap experienced by those who are care experienced, even up to support into training or university.

In closing, children growing up in Southampton Itchen can be hopeful about the building blocks that are going in under this Labour Government. However, they do not want or need just charity; they need a chance—a chance to thrive in life. If we get this right, and I believe that we are absolutely setting out in the right direction, we will change not just individual lives, but the future of whole communities. Therefore, when we are giving every child the best start in life, that has to mean in every single postcode in this country.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I remember that, soon after becoming a Minister, I met many voluntary and community organisations, and one of the first things I did was to really thank them for all of the services and support they provided during really tough times under the previous Government. Some people had watery eyes as I acknowledged the significance of the work that they had been doing and that they continue to do as they contribute to the needs of our society and some of our most vulnerable children.

[Darren Paffey]

I am delighted to hear that each of these Best Start family hubs will have a fully trained and professional SEND co-ordinator to support families. Could the Minister say a bit more about how she envisages those co-ordinators working in partnership with local education, health and local authority partners to avoid silo thinking?

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he connects up the various agencies and Departments and points out the significance of working in close partnership. That is absolutely the right way forward.

This Government are delivering our promise to parents, providing more support to working families than ever before. We are delivering the entitlement of 30 hours of childcare a week for working families, backed by Government funding, which we expect to reach £9 billion from next year. This will save families an average of £7,500 a year and give parents, especially mothers, the freedom and choice to work. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Gareth Snell), I have visited many primary schools in my constituency, and I am sure many Members have done the same, but I want to encourage them to visit their new Best Start family hubs as well.

Quality matters when it comes to early education and childcare. A high-quality setting is what all parents should expect for their child, but a great early years education starts with great people, and that is why we are backing the people who care for and teach our youngest children. We will raise the status of our workforce and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central mentioned, all staff matter. We will introduce a new professional register. We will train more early years teachers, because we know that their impact is significant. We will double the number of stronger practice hubs and build strong links between settings and schools, so that educators can share best practice and provide the best possible care.

Water Safety Education

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Thursday 19th June 2025 Commons Chamber

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab) [R]]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered water safety education.

May I begin by welcoming you to your place, Mr Deputy Speaker? I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to secure this debate and all hon. Members who supported the application for it. The debate is particularly poignant because this week we mark the Royal Life Saving Society’s national Drowning Prevention Week. It is a timely moment to speak not just of tragedy, but of our responsibility and of opportunity.

Every year, over 300 people in this country drown, many of them just metres from safety. In the last three years alone, almost 150 children have lost their lives by drowning. That is the equivalent of five full classrooms of young people, their futures snatched away by accidents that in so many cases were preventable. As an island nation with coastlines, rivers, lakes and canals, we are surrounded by water. It is my privilege to represent the people of Southampton Itchen, a coastal constituency where we live alongside the River Itchen, Weston shore and Ocean Village marina, and the major port alongside Southampton water. The water makes our city what it is, but with that comes risk. So today I ask this House: are we doing enough to prepare our children for the island nation they are growing up in? The problem is clear and stark. Since 2020, over 1,700 people have drowned in the UK. Disturbingly, during that same period, the number of drowning deaths has doubled, with more than half these tragedies occurring in open water.

The national curriculum does currently require some practical training. Primary-age children should be able to swim 25 metres, use a range of strokes and demonstrate self-rescue techniques. But if that alone were enough, we would not be here today debating this issue under the shadow of so many lost lives. The policy on the national curriculum is, of course, welcome, but a policy is only as good as the difference it makes—so how effective is it? A Sport England report estimates that just 74% of children now leave school able to swim 25 metres. That is down since before the pandemic. The gap is one not just of ability either, but of social class. Only 35% of children from low-income families can swim 25 metres; compare that to 76% of children from more affluent backgrounds. The result is that children from the most deprived areas are twice as likely to drown.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for raising the important issue of teaching children to swim. Like me, he represents a coastal community. Two years ago in Hastings and Rye, the Silverdale primary school pool closed. Many children and parents miss that facility, and hundreds of parents have joined me in supporting the campaign to get the school pool at Silverdale back open. Does he agree that we need an increase in school swimming lessons and facilities, not their rolling back?

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that salient point. I have no doubt that occurrences like the one we have heard about in her constituency are part of the reason why fewer children are now able to swim. I wish her every success in her campaign.

[Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)]

I thank my constituency neighbour for giving way. I want to make a similar point to the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore). A number of schools in my constituency have closed their pools over the past 20 years. When I grew up in Lewisham, I had access to a school pool. Does he agree that we need to work together on national policy to ensure that, although some school pools will still close, our young people can access their local leisure facilities at a discounted rate, through local government?

[Darren Paffey]

I thank my constituency neighbour for making that point. There is a great need to work in partnership. We simply do not have as many pools as we used to, be they local authority-run or within schools themselves, but we should be working towards either increasing the number where possible or sharing these vital resources in our communities.

Added to those inequalities, there are ethnic inequalities. Statistically, black children are three times more likely to drown than white children. Water safety education cannot be left to chance or to postcode. It is a vital provision for every part of an island nation such as ours and should not depend on the lottery of family income, school funding or private access to lessons.

Let me tell the House about Joe Abbess. Joe, from Sholing in Southampton, was a bright, responsible and fit 17-year-old young man. He was an ambitious trainee chef at the local college and worked part-time at Southampton football club. He was the kind of teenager that any parent would be proud of—someone who followed the rules and led by example. He was a caring and loyal friend, who was well known in his friendship group as the “dad” figure. On 31 May 2023, Joe and his friends went for a day at Bournemouth beach. They were swimming waist high in the sea as Joe, who was a strong swimmer, had done many, many times before. They were between the safety flags, in full view of lifeguards. But in an instant, a rip current turned their fun into tragedy. The water was very suddenly over their heads. Joe got into difficulty and was pulled further out into the water before disappearing beneath it. Eleven people were rescued from the water that day because of that rip current, and I commend the emergency services for their actions. However, tragically, Joe and 12-year-old Sunnah Khan did not survive.

The coroner reported that it was an accident—a devastating and fatal act of nature. However, the coroner also reported that rip currents can occur anywhere along the UK coastline at any time. How many people, especially children, know that? How many Members in this Chamber would understand, recognise and rightly respond to a rip current? On sunny days such as those we are enjoying at the moment, many will rightly want to enjoy our rivers and beaches. We must do everything we can to ensure that they can do so safely.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. He is right to bring up the issue of water safety education. Sometimes, even strong swimmers can unfortunately get into difficulties. Does he feel there is a role for Education Ministers and local councils to identify where the problems are, whether they are in the seas surrounding the United Kingdom or in our lakes? Unfortunately, some people have jumped into the lakes in my constituency without knowing there were obstructions in the water, to give one example. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there should be greater partnership work between the Department and councils to identify those problems, so that those who go swimming know exactly what to watch out for?

[Darren Paffey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the very relevant point he makes. I will come on to the issue of how we can ensure that education is locally targeted. Each of the situations we face in our constituencies will be that little bit different, so it is important that on top of a compulsory expectation there are locally targeted campaigns.

We would not let someone drive a car without first passing their theory test, so why do not we comprehensively and consistently teach our children about water safety before they enter the water to have fun? This is not about taking away that fun; it is about being aware of the hidden threats, and therefore having the power to do something about it.

I pay tribute to Joe’s mother, Vanessa Abbess, who I am pleased is present in the Gallery today. Ness has become a tireless campaigner, sending hundreds of letters to local schools, working with the Royal Life Saving Society and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and pushing for improved signage in Bournemouth. She brought her powerful story to Parliament earlier this week, when we established the all-party parliamentary group on water safety education. Ness has done all that in the hope that no other family should suffer as the Abbess family has.

The coroner’s report was submitted to the Secretary of State in October last year. The coroner said:

“An ideal opportunity to warn and inform all members of the public would be through educating children of the risks. The lack of providing education to children around these risks through the national classroom curriculum could lead to future deaths.”

The report also stated that

“urgent action should be taken to prevent future deaths”

and that the Department for Education has

“the power to take such action.”

I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s response to the coroner’s report, in which she committed to

“look carefully at what more can be done to support schools to provide water safety education to all pupils,”

and to

“give full consideration to including a requirement that all pupils should be taught about water safety, including the water safety code.”

I urge the Government today to uphold that commitment and to go further.

As has become clear, we need to do more than just teach swimming. As hon. Members have highlighted, access to pools is uneven, lessons vary in quality and duration, and too many children—especially in deprived or minority communities—are being left behind. The Department for Education states:

“All pupils should be taught to swim and how to be safe in and around water”.

Well, yes, they should, but is saying they “should” really enough? At this point, I do not believe so—we can and we must go further. We need to mandate classroom-based water safety education in every school.

I pay tribute to many people who have campaigned on this before, including Rebecca Ramsay from Chorley, who secured some concessions under the previous Government. However, she has recently said that changes are not coming quickly enough. For her son, Dylan, for Joe, for Sunnah and for too many others, I ask the Government to tackle this issue with the urgency that it deserves. The Royal Life Saving Society has already created high-quality classroom resources that are cost-effective and proven to improve children’s understanding and confidence around water. It reaches everyone—through its Water Smart Schools’ campaign, its Splash Safety at Your Pad campaign, and its lifesaving training, accreditation and awards—regardless of background or access to swimming pools. These resources offer a lesson for life. Let us not leave it to chance; let us bring those resources into the heart of our curriculum.

I look forward to the Minister’s response. Although I recognise that her responsibilities lie within education, included in the recommendations are some wider points that I ask her to convey back to Government. First, there is currently no Minister for water safety or drowning prevention in the UK despite having Ministers for fire safety, road safety and other preventable public dangers, and despite Scotland and Wales having dedicated water safety ministerial roles. Why does England not have such a role? The National Water Safety Forum and the World Health Organisation have both urged the UK Government to appoint such Ministers, and I echo that call today. The coroner noted that one in four children still does not receive any swimming education, and that number has almost certainly worsened since the pandemic.

Secondly, I ask the Government to commit to a national swimming and water safety strategy, based on up-to-date evidence about children’s access across this country to swimming lessons and water safety education. Thirdly, my major request is that when the national curriculum is updated, following the current review, and is then taught in every school as mandated in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, will the Government use that opportunity to enshrine water safety as a core, compulsory part of every child’s education? The point of the curriculum is not just to pass exams; it is to prepare our young people for life. If Labour’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity, here is just about the greatest opportunity that we can offer them: the opportunity to learn and to live.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Does the hon. Member agree that there is more to this than just teaching children to swim? Hope Cove Life Boat in my constituency saves about 60 people from drowning every year, and many of them have been swept out to sea because of wind and tides. Understanding the nature of the sea and how dangerous it can be is crucial. It is not just about knowing how to swim, but about knowing how to survive at sea.

[Darren Paffey]

I fully agree with the hon. Lady. As I commended the emergency services that rushed to the scene on that fateful day in Bournemouth, I commend the project that she has mentioned in her constituency.

In closing, no child should drown simply because they were not taught how to recognise the dangers. It is essential to teach children how to swim, yes, but it is not enough; we must teach them how to survive in different contexts. The coroner’s warning was chilling in its clarity:

“Further deaths will occur unless action is taken.”

So today I ask the Government please to act now and make classroom-based water safety education a compulsory part of the national curriculum, not an optional extra, not a postcode lottery, but a guaranteed lifesaving entitlement for every child in every school, in every constituency, in every part of the country. The time to act is now, before any more lives are lost.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey]

I thank all Members, from across the Chamber, who have taken part in this debate. I will mention a few key strands that have been raised, just because they align with some of the things that I have asked for. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Rebecca Long Bailey) mentioned that the fire response, which is often the first response to these terrible tragedies, is not statutory. Does she agree that a Minister with particular responsibility for drowning prevention might bring that coherence?

[Rebecca Long Bailey]

indicated assent.

[Darren Paffey]

I hope the Minister has followed that. I do not expect everything to be on education, but there is a necessary cross-departmental organisation response that needs to happen. It goes beyond education and some of the recommendations reflect that.

My hon. Friends the Members for West Ham and Beckton (James Asser) and for Bangor Aberconwy (Claire Hughes) mentioned the information campaigns that are necessary, particularly using contemporary tools of social media, which takes me to another campaign I am involved in. The potential of social media to do good is great. Unfortunately, too often that is not what happens, so we need to hold social media companies to account, to ensure that they keep our young people safe.

My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Julia Buckley) mentioned a wonderful community-led campaign, and there is a real example to take from that. On the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme (Lee Pitcher), I met Sam’s dad when he was in the House yesterday and I know he appreciates the work that my hon. Friend does, so I commend him for Sam’s law. He can count on my support and, I am sure, that of many others across the House. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Maya Ellis), who, despite the focus on schools that some of the debate has necessarily taken, made an incredibly salient point about why water safety education needs to go wider, and adults learning to swim would also benefit from that.

We heard during this debate—and during Drowning Prevention Week—about the wonderful variety of waterways that we enjoy. We have heard about the Thames, from its historical east to the tropical west. The hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) mentioned the neighbouring river to mine—of course, the greatest river is the River Itchen. I share the Solent with my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin). We heard about the quays and canals of Salford and Greater Manchester, the Severn, the Ribble, the national parks, and the lidos from Ayrshire to Hilsea. We say that these waterways must be enjoyed, but they must be enjoyed safely, and we must look at how we can move on from the current situation.

I thank everyone who has added breadth to the appreciation of this issue, as well as adding weight to the sense of urgency that we must take. Hon. Members from across the Chamber have demonstrated why the ability to swim and the knowledge of what happens in different waterways up and down the country is absolutely crucial. Although we have done that through heartbreaking personal accounts, I hope that their names and stories, having been heard in this place, will move us to action.

I appreciate the Minister’s words on what is happening. I am encouraged to hear about the meetings taking place. I look forward to reading and engaging with the RSHE guidance. I remain of the view that this should be foundational, not pieced together by different approaches. I look forward to engaging further and ensuring that by Drowning Prevention Week 2026, we will have moved on and have acted and saved more lives. By then we will have been through what is already proving to be a hot summer, and indeed through the winter—the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) rightly pointed out the dangers of ice.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee, all those who have supported and spoken in the debate, my team who have made today happen, and the various organisations—I will not list them all—helping us to move the dial on this issue. Finally, and most importantly, I thank Ness, who has been an incredible inspiration for me in the debate; I hope she sees today that her work is of national significance.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered water safety education.

Oral Answers to Questions

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Monday 28th April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

We will set out our approach to the recommendations in the usual way, but I say to the hon. Gentleman that one of the very first acts of this incoming Labour Government was to accept the previous recommendation to fund the 5.5% pay award for teachers that had been sat on the desk of the Conservative Government.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Sadly, after years of Tory Government, fewer younger people in Southampton Itchen are successfully engaged in employment, education or apprenticeships compared with the national average. What specific steps will the Secretary of State take to ensure that apprenticeship and university routes are equally valued and equally accessible to the young people in my constituency?

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)]

I rise to speak in support of amendment 172, tabled by my party, and then I will say a few words to lend cross-party support to new clauses 8 and 3.

I truly welcome the important steps taken in the Bill to strengthen the systems intended to keep children safe, yet the Bill fails to embed meaningful consideration of children’s views. This means that critical decisions may be made at local and regional levels without consideration of the views and experiences of the children they affect. It is concerning that the proposed requirement in the Bill is to seek the views of the child only where the local authority thinks that is appropriate. The NSPCC points out that this is weaker than the existing Children Act 1989 requirements to ascertain and give due weight to the wishes and feelings of the child, in line with their age and maturity. In short, while there are so many good things in the Bill, it inexplicably falls short of that gold standard. Our amendment 172 seeks to address that.

Amendment 172 would ensure that local authorities offering and facilitating family group decision making must consistently seek to ascertain the child’s views and to properly support them to engage, where this is in their best interests. Importantly, the amendment also seeks to ensure that, where attendance at a family group decision making meeting may not be in the child’s interests—which must of course include giving due weight to their wishes and feelings and identifying safeguarding concerns—that is not the end of the story, because even if the child is not in attendance, the amendment requires the local authority to ensure that the child’s views are sought and, where relevant, independently represented. This could be, for example, through an independent advocate, recognising the incredible work they do to support even the youngest children to be heard and to participate where possible. So I hope the Minister will look seriously at that amendment.

New clause 8 was tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). I thank her for her years of work on this issue, and I want to reiterate that the Green party supports putting into law equal protection for children. The physical assault of children is never acceptable, and we need to follow Scotland and Wales by urgently updating our law. The Children’s Commissioner, the NSPCC, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, and many others have been crystal clear, not least in the wake of the horrifying case of Sara Sharif, that children should be equally protected from assault.

The Children’s Commissioner makes the important point that equal protection from physical assault is not a so-called smacking ban. That term trivialises this issue and is misleading about the types of behaviour that would come under scrutiny through such legislation, wrongly implying the creation of a new offence. Equal protection would instead remove the defence currently available to parents and carers who have been charged with assault, which by their nature are some of the most serious cases of child maltreatment.

I will also say a few words in support of new clause 3, tabled by the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who chairs the Education Committee. There is strong cross-party support for a requirement for the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a draft national care offer, to set minimum standards for local care offers. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns) tabled a similar amendment in Committee—she is unfortunately unable to speak in today’s debate as she is on Environmental Audit Committee business.

All local authorities, as we have heard, have to produce a local offer for care leavers, but the support they get is a postcode lottery. A great national offer would help support independent living into adulthood for all care leavers. Enhancing and improving support for all care leavers would involve an ambitious cross-Government programme of work, but it would mean that for the first time there could be a clear list of statutory entitlements that care leavers could access. Such entitlements should mirror the support that many young people receive from their parents, including support with rent deposits or free transport. With the number of children in care at a record high, we simply must do more to support those leaving care. There is both a financial and moral case for the Government to do that.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I rise to comment on Government new clauses 18 to 22 and new clause 3. I very much welcome the new corporate parenting duties and the value they add to the Bill and to the activities of authorities up and down the country. The new clauses add value because this Bill is about boosting standards in schools and creating opportunities. It is about children getting the best start in life and ensuring that there are clear protections for young people. Crucially, it is about stopping children and young people from falling through the cracks in the system.

In addition to the unique identifier that this debate has considered to join up services to help children and young people; the overhaul of children’s social care, which is long overdue, starting by capping excess profits, ensuring collaboration and ensuring that every pound counts towards getting the best for children; and the measures to support kinship carers and care leavers elsewhere in the Bill, all of which are crucial, it is also crucial to strengthen what children in care can expect authorities to do to secure good outcomes for them.

I previously led children’s services as a cabinet member in Southampton. That was during a time when we needed to make huge strides forward to improve how we supported children and young people. I know from that experience what rests on the services provided: they make or break opportunities for the young people looking to us for care. It is welcome that the Bill now includes accommodation in the local offer, which makes good on a commitment to guarantee care leavers a place to live. New clause 18 sets out the wider responsibilities for authorities. The reality is that the barriers faced by care-experienced young people are greater than those faced by most of their peers, and good outcomes will likely be far harder for them to secure.

It is right that authorities do more in good, sensible collaboration, but what does that look like? It is couched in unfortunate language, in a sense: “parenting” is a word that pretty much everyone can relate to, and we understand “corporate”, but not in this context. We know within the sector what corporate parenting means, but it potentially draws away from how we should be thinking about it in terms of a family, rather than an institution, public service or organisation with thresholds and goals. That means a family gives love and attention to those in its care. It ensures a warm, safe place to live, echoing the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). It is about getting them in front of a doctor or dentist precisely when they need it.

We know that the support does not stop when kids leave home. As a father of teenagers and a small one, I have not yet faced the moment when they leave home, but I know that if and when they eventually leave, I will not suddenly say, “You’re someone else’s issue now”. Therefore, corporate parents cannot and must not do the same. When kids leave home, parents continue to help them out. If, for example, that family has a family business, they give first dibs on a job or training opportunity to their child. That is what councils do as corporate parents. They act as guarantors and can help with university or apprenticeship costs. In short, they fight for those young people and act as one family. They do not pass the buck and say, “It’s not my problem,” and that is what corporate parenting must be about across all Government organisations and other authorities.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will not. The hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity to speak. I am nearly finished.

It is important to imagine the case had Conservative colleagues been successful—new clause 15 is a weak echo of that reckless shout for attention on Second Reading, and a shameful reminder. Alongside all the provisions in the Bill, which they agree will keep children safer, they should get behind the actions that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Safeguarding are driving on the issue of grooming gangs—real action, which means a great deal to me and many others in the Committee. Knowing the horrific abuse that girls from my city have gone through, I am hugely thankful for those actions. Opposition Members in Committee should not just withdraw the new clause, but apologise for risking protections for children by recklessly chasing headlines in this way.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for her frankly masterful navigation through the facts. This moment demands the facts—not misrepresentation and the dismissal of previous inquiries, but the gravitas and experience that she has brought to the debate. I believe that has kept the Committee on the track that it is meant to be on.

I simply make the observation against the new clause that this Bill and this moment require leadership. Leadership looks like getting on with making the changes that we have heard about in great detail. The subject has already been thoroughly and fully investigated, with recommendations made by a leading expert. It is time to make those changes to our country, to our law and to our services, first, to allow us to reflect on the past, and the report does that, and, secondly, so that we can get on with catching those who continue to do such things—and that is the horror of it. We are not just talking about something historical. Without doubt, such things are going on as we speak.

It is time to ensure that the whole of Government work together so that our law enforcement agencies are resourced to catch those who perpetrate such disgusting crimes. Crucially, this is the moment to ensure that we prevent them happening in the future. Several of the report’s 20 recommendations are already in train and implementation should be the absolute priority.

That is what leading looks like at this moment, but when it comes to following I am afraid that I agree with the observation made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Some people have become a little bedazzled by social media suggestion and innuendo from certain individuals, wherever they are in the world. Opposition Members should be honest about it: such individuals have absolutely no genuine interest in the victims whose sufferings are known, but have their own political agenda to follow. They use their social media platform to do that, and none of it moves us any closer to doing what we need to do, which is to reflect, to catch the criminals and to prevent such crimes in future.

Those who are able to separate fact from trend will know that the urgent priority at this moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North so thoughtfully set out, is to act. Anything that becomes a distraction from that should not be supported.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I want to start by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen that leadership and action are needed. Indeed, leadership and action were needed three years ago in February 2022 when the IICSA report came out. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for her knowledgeable insights and her forensic examination of the Bill, the recommendations and the report. I will spend a moment establishing for the record what exactly those 20 recommendations are asking for, which we as a Government have committed to implementing in full—albeit three years too late for some victims.

Let me list the headings of the report. The first is on a mandatory aggravating factor for CSE offences. The second is on statutory guidance on preventing CSE. The third is on data collection and analysis, and establishing a national database. The fourth is about strengthening the criminal justice response. The fifth is about training for professionals and requiring mandatory training for all professionals working with children, including social workers, police and healthcare staff, to help them recognise the signs of exploitation and act accordingly. The sixth is about a national framework for support, and developing a national framework for services to ensure that appropriate support is available for victims. The seventh is about supporting victims and improving the availability and accessibility of specialised support services for victims. The eighth concerns tailored responses to CSE victims, ensuring authorities provide a tailored response to the specific needs of children who are victims. The ninth is about launching a national public awareness campaign to raise awareness of CSE, educating the public and reducing the stigma that surrounds the victims. The 10th is to strengthen safeguarding in schools and introduce better protocols. The 11th is about tackling perpetrators of CSE, strengthening law enforcement’s abilities to target them. The 12th is for a Government review of safeguarding systems, conducting a review of the national safeguarding system to ensure current measures are sufficiently robust to address child sexual exploitation and victims. The 13th is to ensure adequate local authority resources. The 14th concerns independence for local safeguarding boards. The 15th recommends a review of the placement of settings for vulnerable children. The 16th calls for a stronger legal framework for CSE. The 17th is about increasing the use of risk assessment tools. The 18th is about rehabilitation and reintegration services. The 19th is on specialised support for parents and families and the 20th on a regular review of local authority practices. Each one of those 20 recommendations has the victims at its heart.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Damian Hinds]

I assure the hon. Lady that on this occasion I am not holding her Liberal Democrat party membership card against her. That is not the basis on which I am making these points.

The hon. Lady said that whatever type of school opens, it should have a 50% cap. By definition, there is no such thing as a VA school with a 50% cap, because being a voluntary aided school means having control over admissions in that way. It is not true that we have necessarily had the 50% cap all the way through; I point to the VA school that opened in her very constituency, and there have been others since then. The reason why only a small handful of VA schools have opened over the past couple of decades is that there was no money for it. To get money to open a school, it had to be a free school.

In 2018-19, the then Secretary of State, fine fellow that he was, created a small capital fund for the voluntary aided schools capital scheme. The reason related to patterns of immigration, particularly Polish and eastern European immigration. In the old days, it was Irish immigration—that is where I come from—but there have been many other waves from different places. As a result of eastern European immigration, there was a demand for Catholic schools in certain parts of the country. Those people, who had come to this country and made their lives here, and of whom there were now generations, were not able to access such schools in the way they could have in other parts of the country. Under that scheme, there were applications from five different faiths; at the time, one was approved and one put on hold. I contend that it is a good system that we have the cap for that tranche of schools—they are not going to be free schools—to retain those safeguards, but it is still possible to open a denominational school, of whichever faith, in circumstances in which there is great need in a particular area.

We talked earlier about local authority areas and their difference in size. Birmingham, which is one massive local authority area, is very different from an individual London borough. For the consideration of faith school applications, it ought to be possible to look over a wider area, because travel-to-school distances are much longer on average.

I want to check with the Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, that the Government’s proposals will not preclude the opening of new voluntary aided schools. I am afraid I must conclude by saying that, for reasons that the hon. Member for Twickenham will understand and that have nothing to do with her party affiliation, I cannot support amendment 48.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I rise to support clause 51 and to question the nature of the amendments.

The block on new local authority-run schools could only have been introduced for ideological reasons. Its removal is hugely welcome. If one model were of substantially better quality than the other, there might be a basis for such a block, but the facts speak for themselves: that is not the case. There is now a statistically negligible difference between the number of good and outstanding academies and the number of good and outstanding schools of other models, including local authority schools. It is plain for all to see that they are as good as each other, so the argument no longer holds water that one model is worse than the other and that legislation is therefore needed to block it.

I fully relate to the experience mentioned by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, where the only option is a free school application that then gets shut down. In my Southampton constituency, we put forward an excellent bid—all the advice throughout the process deemed it excellent—for a free special school. We are all painfully aware of the need for extra places for those with special educational needs and disabilities. With a free school application as our only option, we dutifully engaged, only to have that option shut down to us in the end. That pushes the responsibility back on existing schools to expand, entirely at the cost of already cash-strapped local authorities.

The clause is a sensible restoration of parity of esteem between different school models. On the rationale for objections and scrutiny, I have to say that am left a little confused by the Opposition’s positions and arguments. They question the local authority’s being both the regulator and provider of schools. If they do not support that, what is their solution? Is it for the local authority to become redundant and have no role in planning, so we therefore have centralisation back to the Department for Education? Or is it that we continue to prohibit local authority schools from opening, thereby reducing the mixed economy and maintaining their free school presumption, which got us into this situation in the first place?

I am glad that we have clause 51 in the Bill. It is a strong response to a real need. It takes account of the reality of quality and democratic accountability in school place planning and the opening up of schools. It reflects the fact that we have excellent teachers in local authority maintained schools, every bit as much as in other models of school where they choose to work. It opens up opportunities for multiple bids from school providers. That reflects the position set out in the preceding clauses, which is that we want to get back to a position of collaboration, not unbridled competition, in the provision of education for our children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Will the Minister confirm that the new clause will also apply to the small group of young people who are leaving the young justice system and returning to their home area?

[Darren Paffey]

Briefly, I warmly welcome the new clause. Colleagues will be aware of my interest in this area. From years of working alongside those who fall foul of laws and principles on paper that they never see, but that make a material difference to their lives and outcomes, I know that this will be a positive change. It builds on years of work, including not only the work of various charities already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, but the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) and no doubt countless others, and will be warmly welcomed. I am excited to be able to report to those in my constituency on the work of this Government in making sure that care leavers have better outcomes. I look forward to working with Ministers in the future to work out how we can get from this point to other areas that will make a positive material difference to their lives.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and absolutely agree on the importance of this measure and the difference it will make to children and young people as they move into the sometimes challenging transition to adulthood, having experienced care and on leaving care.

In response to the question from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, the amendment will impact children classed under the Children Act 1989 as relevant children or former relevant children who present for homelessness assistance. That would cover young people aged 16 to 24 who have been looked after by a local authority for a period of at least 13 weeks, or periods that amount to 13 weeks, since their 14th birthday, at least one day of which must have been since they attained the age of 18.

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question would, therefore, be subject to those parameters, but I imagine that in most cases it would apply to young people leaving the criminal justice system. He is right to raise that as a concern. Indeed, the purpose of the measure is to disapply the intentional homelessness test for care leavers who are within that scope. Care leavers who have left the youth justice system would quite rightly be included, given that they will experience similar challenges to other care leavers in establishing themselves in a secure adult life.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Damian Hinds]

I do not think those things are in conflict. My point was that the national curriculum, as it was set up, is quite loose. It did not have to be, it does not have to be now and it does not have to be in five or 10 years. It can be written exactly as Ministers at the time wish to write it. Although the hon. Lady says we are not debating whether to make the national curriculum more rigid, actually we might be—we do not know. I will come to that in a moment.

I was saying—you will be pleased to know, Sir Christopher, that I do want to accelerate—that the flexibility can be an instrument for school improvement, either for entire year groups, for the entire school or, indeed, on a longer basis, for a nurture group or a group or individual who, for whatever reason, needs additional support. It also means that schools might specialise somewhat, and that they might innovate without having, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston rightly said, to overthink about whether they are complying exactly with this or that specification.

At a time when we are rightly concerned about attendance numbers, it has been suggested to me that making adherence to the national curriculum more specified, and possibly the curriculum itself being made more rigid, could be injurious to school attendance or inclusion in mainstream schooling if it makes more children feel rejected, uncomfortable or unhappy at school and so seek education either at home or in alternative settings.

The crucial point is that, whether schools have innovated with an academy trust curriculum, decided to deviate to support individual groups for a period of time, or specialised somewhat, they will all be judged by Ofsted on the simple requirement of having a broad and balanced curriculum. For most schools the easiest way to comply with having a broad and balanced curriculum is to follow the national curriculum—but there can be other ways. Again, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, I am left wondering what the problem the Government are trying to solve is.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

We keep coming back to “What is the problem?” That is the wrong question to ask. We are partly here to solve problems, but we are also here to reach further and be more ambitious, so the right hon. Gentleman should be asking, “What is the objective we are aiming for?” That would be a far more engaging question for him to ask.

[Damian Hinds]

If the hon. Gentleman is going to pose a great rhetorical question like that, he should have an answer ready. What is it? What is this thing that we are reaching for? I do not think any of us in this room is well qualified or well placed to say, “Where can we take this school?” The person best placed to decide that is the school leader. We would like to give some leeway and flexibility, within a system of all sorts of measurements, constraints and so on, for people to be able to innovate and do what is right for children.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

Amendment 94 in my name would require the Secretary of State to take account of the availability of qualified teachers in each subject and the desirability of specific sectoral expertise when making regulations under clause 40. We agree that, ideally, we want every child taught by a qualified teacher, but we have to recognise that in the world we are living in, and given the shortages, there will be times when the best thing for the school, children and other staff is to see experts coming in who do not have a teacher qualification. I hope that Ministers will support this modest amendment in order to prevent unintended consequences.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I rise to support clause 40 and to argue that the amendments under discussion are unnecessary. I very much welcome this measure. It underpins the ambition that the Government have to ensure that every child gets the best quality of education. Although this will not necessarily be a shared view, the top quality of education comes not through obsessing about structures, but about getting the right people in place. This is simply a common-sense proposal to ensure that, across the board, no matter the structure of the school, parents can be reassured, and as children set foot in that school they can be reassured, that they are getting the best quality education.

[Patrick Spencer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Darren Paffey]

I will make some progress and then will be happy to give way.

I ask Opposition Members to reflect on the logical fallacy of applying this laissez-faire approach in a way that they probably would not do—or at least I hope they would not do—for other professions. I think it is uncontroversial to ask for assurance that, when I take my car in for repair, I am not just giving it over to someone who is enthusiastic about car repairs, but is actually qualified. The stakes of that going wrong are high; someone who does not know how to fix brakes will cause significant risk. When I visit the GP, I want reassurance that I have not just got someone who has done health tech, had a great 20-year-long career in that, and has decided to swap over and offer their expertise there. I want someone who is absolutely qualified in that practice.

I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said: no one doubts the quality of subject experts. No one doubts that those with significant top-quality experience can come in and be absolutely inspirational, but by saying that that is enough, Opposition Members suggest that qualified teacher status adds no value to that subject expertise. What about the skills in effective student development, pedagogy, collaboration, class management, assessment, feedback and differentiation? Those are not things that come naturally with subject expertise.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Darren Paffey]

Who is diving in first? I will give way.

[Patrick Spencer]

If the hon. Member takes a moment later today to listen to the Secretary of State’s interview on “The News Agents” podcast, Emily Maitlis said, “You can have a terrible teacher with qualified status, but a fantastic teacher who is not qualified…can’t you?” The Secretary of State’s response was, “Absolutely”. Does the hon. Member agree with her?

[Darren Paffey]

What I agree is, that if someone is not performing up to scratch, the response should not be to remove the qualification for everyone else, but to deal with that individual teacher and drive up standards within the school. That is once again, completely common sense.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we train our teachers for a reason? Would he agree that parents expect their children to be taught by qualified teachers for a reason? Would he agree that some of the dismissive attitudes that we have heard from Opposition Members are insulting to the professionalism of our qualified teachers?

[Darren Paffey]

I fully agree that it is deeply concerning that qualified teacher status is so unimportant to them. However, it is unsurprising that the profession is in the state it is and feeling utterly undervalued after the last 14 years. I simply do not understand why qualified teacher status in all schools is such a low priority for some.

The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston mentioned that is the prerogative of good headteachers to have that freedom. Would he therefore logically suggest that it is the freedom of every hospital director to decide whether someone is suitably qualified to carry out surgery, or would they ask for an independent agreed common framework of training and qualification for surgeons? I suspect, and hope, it would be that. The response, as I have said, to the recruitment and the shortage issue is not to lower our ambitions.

I think back to the evidence session in which we heard from Sir Martyn Oliver—His Majesty’s chief inspector at Ofsted—who actually said that appointing a non-qualified teacher to role was a “deficit decision”. Those were his words, not mine. He said that it would not be his first choice, no matter how well it worked, and that non-QTS staff should supplement fully qualified staff, not replace them. I ask the Opposition to reflect on that.

This proportionate, reassuring measure is restoring common sense. It is once again restoring the value of teaching as a profession, alongside the other measures that have been taken on teacher pay, teacher prestige and investment in schools, although those were certainly not taken in recent years.

[Damian Hinds]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen. I enjoyed his speech and I think he made several very good points, a number of which the Opposition would agree with. We certainly agree with the importance of the foundation of qualified teacher status, and a lot of work rightly went into reforming the core content and framework of initial teacher training, as well as the early career framework. Those are incredibly important foundations for a successful career in teaching.

With the present Government’s plan to recruit just 6,500 teachers over the next five years, which is a material slow-down compared with the Parliament just ended, it should be more straightforward to hit those recruitment targets, but I do not think this discussion is really about the numbers that we can recruit into the teaching profession. It is about getting the right people, which the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen also said. It is not about obsessing over having the structures but getting the right people, and this is about getting the right people in front of children in school settings. By the way, presuming we are not just talking about academics, that also applies to sport, music and art.

[Damian Hinds]

I think this is where the whole House comes together. The best of all worlds is to have someone who is both a subject specialist, with their own excellent academic record, and QTS, and who is also a really inspirational practitioner. Of course, those three things come together on many occasions, but sometimes there are choices that have to be made.

[Darren Paffey]

Very briefly, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree therefore that the right people we are talking about are not just those who quite rightly often have a stellar career in another area of subject expertise? Would they not be right for children and for schools if they wanted not only to bring that expertise but to do everything they can to be best prepared to direct the curriculum, outcome and chances of those children by being qualified?

[Damian Hinds]

Of course, and for many people that is the right thing to do. There are mid-career and later-career programmes for coming into teaching and I want people to do those more and more. Sometimes, however, people come from abroad, and it could be from a country with which we do not necessarily have mutual recognition, or they might come from the independent sector, so they might have taught for many years and be an outstanding practitioner. The hon. Gentleman also said if he went to the mechanic, he would not want someone who is just fascinated by engines, and I understand that entirely. However, if someone wanted to learn football, and they had the opportunity to learn from a professional footballer, although not as the only PE teacher—