Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

2nd reading
Wednesday 8th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Over the past 30 years we have had something that is quite unusual in politics: a degree of cross-party consensus about education in England. Schools in England have been improved by the magic formula of freedom plus accountability. It started in the late ’80s, was accelerated after 1997 by Labour and was accelerated further under the Lib Dem-Conservative Government in 2010. And it worked: England improved not just compared with the rest of the world, but compared with Scotland and Wales, where the opposite agenda was followed—academies were banned, league tables were abandoned and a progressive curriculum was installed.

Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to 7th in the PISA league table on maths, while Wales went from 29th to 27th. On science, England went from 11th to 9th, while Wales slumped from 21st to 29th. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in a searing report titled “Major challenges for education in Wales”, amazingly, disadvantaged children in England are now doing better than the average child in Wales. Earlier, the Secretary of State talked about what the Bill would do for the working class. We have seen what Labour’s agenda has done for the working class in Wales.

It was a similar story in Scotland, which collapsed from 15th to 25th in maths and from 11th to 26th in science. Other comparisons tell us the same. The trends in international mathematics and science study found that from 2011 to 2023, England’s rankings were all maintained or improved to become among the best in the western world. Meanwhile, what happened in Scotland and Wales? We do not know, because they withdrew from the test after bad results in 2007.

Yet despite all that evidence, the Bill in front of us today takes us backwards. Never mind the things we did—the Government are undoing the best things that the last Labour Government did. As educators have pointed out, it is totally unclear what problem Ministers think they are trying to fix, but it is clear that it will cause problems, because it takes away academy freedoms and starts rolling back the academy programme.

One important freedom that the Bill takes away is the freedom to pay more on top of the national salary scale to retain more good teachers. The biggest school trust in the country, United Learning, uses those freedoms to pay 5.6% above the figures set out in the Government’s national terms. The leader of that trust, the former DFE official Sir Jon Coles, has warned that what the Government are planning will be damaging and will make it harder to retain good teachers.

Schools employing at least 20,000 teachers will be hit by the end of this freedom. Even the Government have sort of recognised the problem, saying:

“We recognise the good practice that academy trusts have developed over the years, but good practice shouldn’t be limited by administrative structures.”

This is bizarre. If it is good practice, why are the Government not extending those freedoms to all schools, rather than taking them away from academies? The DFE is trying to say that their new law will not affect teachers’ pay. Why then are the Government passing it? What is the point of it? If it is so good, why have they told Schools Week that it will not apply to senior staff?

Ministers are compounding the problem by taking away freedoms over QTS. About 13,600 teachers do not have QTS at the moment, and a lot of those who enter state education without QTS—about 600 a year—go on to get it. However, the fact that teachers can join state schools without having it up front reduces the barriers to entry and makes it easier to recruit to state schools. The Treasury estimates that this policy will cost schools up to £127 million for the existing stock of teachers and £43 million for the flow of new teachers each year, but there will be no compensation for this cost.

The bill also ends academies’ freedom to vary from the national curriculum. This freedom promotes genuine diversity in our schools; not all children learn in the same way, and parents can currently choose what is right for their child. It also protects educators from endless meddling by well-meaning politicians and interest groups. In Scotland, the imposition of the ironically named but disastrous “Curriculum for Excellence” has been one of the main reasons why Scotland’s schools have plummeted down the international league tables. Many schools will now have to spend a lot of time churning through Labour’s brand-new curriculum to work out whether they comply. It is another move away from a culture of teacher empowerment and towards a tick-box compliance culture, and a backwards move. What problem are Ministers trying to fix here? They have admitted in a written answer that they do not even know how many schools will be affected by this policy. It is bizarre. They are leaping without even bothering to look. As well as cutting back all those other freedoms, the Bill also gives the Secretary of State a terrifying, sweeping new power to boss academies about on any subject of her choosing where she thinks a school is behaving unreasonably.

As well as taking away school freedoms and leaving us with academies in name only, the Bill also hacks back the academies programme; in doing so, it hacks back accountability, which has always been the flipside of school freedoms. In 1997, one of Labour’s first moves was to publish a list of failing schools and start intervening in them. After trying other things, it became apparent that the best way to intervene was to make the schools academies and put them under new management. This Bill, of course, abolishes the academy order, under which failing local authority schools are turned into academies. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), in her superb speech, gave a great explanation of why abandoning this central Blair-era reform is such a mistake. Of course, the very best way to turn around a struggling school is to make it part of a strong trust. However, the Government have abolished the academy grant and the trust capacity grant that support this process. They hope instead that a bit of advice from some DFE officials will do the trick of turning around failing schools—but that centralist approach has been tried, and it failed.

The Bill takes us back to local authorities setting up new schools, which, at best, sets up a messy situation. However, I am particularly nervous about it in the context of the other measures in the Bill, which reverse the reforms of the late 1980s. Those reforms, for the first time, enabled the best schools to grow, unshackling them from local authorities, and ushered in the era of parental choice, which is itself a powerful motor for school improvement. Clause 50 gives a local authority the ability to object if good schools want to grow, or even if the academy is proposing to keep its published admission number the same. In the context of falling pupil numbers, it will be tempting for local authorities to prop up unpopular schools—particularly local authority-run ones—by sharing out the pupils from more successful schools. Rather than the normal split between a regulator and a provider, local authorities will be both. Politicians in some local authorities have never liked school freedom, and it will be very tempting for them to push down numbers in academies to protect the schools they run. Earlier, we heard the former Labour leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), welcoming the Bill for exactly that reason—the same reasons he welcomes it are the reasons parents are right to fear it.

The Bill is a massive step backwards. There are huge, real issues that need tackling in schools, but the Bill does not help with them and, in lots of cases, hinders them. Our reasoned amendment today makes this clear.

[Dr Lauren Sullivan]

Will the shadow Minister give way?

[Neil O’Brien]

I am pressed for time, so I will see if I can get to the hon. Lady at the end.

Our amendment is also the first opportunity that MPs will have during the Bill’s proceedings to vote for a proper national inquiry into the grooming gangs. As the Bill goes through, we will seek to make further amendments to ensure that this much-needed inquiry happens. The current discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there. It did so because a local inquiry would not have the powers needed: it cannot summon witnesses, cannot take evidence under oath and cannot requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men who led the Greater Manchester local investigation resign because they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry and say that there should instead be local inquiries. But there have been years over which they should have happened, and they have not happened.

In many cases, the local officials are part of the problem and even part of the cover-up, so they cannot be the people to fix this. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, but take, for example, the case of Keighley, where my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years. [Interruption.] Last night, while Ministers were here saying that there should be a local inquiry, in Keighley they were blocking a local inquiry—even as they spoke. So that is not the answer.

The Government hide behind the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It was an important first step, but what it was not and never intended to be was a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. It looked at half a dozen—just half a dozen—places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were 40 to 50 places where grooming gangs operated ,and the voices of the victims in those places have never been heard. [Interruption.] Having a proper national inquiry does not stop anyone getting on and implementing the recommendations of the Jay report. Indeed, one of the recommendations of the Jay report, recommendation 4, is to increase public awareness. Without a national inquiry, it is clear that we will not get to the bottom of this issue and that the people who looked the other way or covered up will not be held to account. So far, how many people in authority have been brought to justice or held to account? The answer is zero. [Interruption.] Tonight, we have a chance to change that.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I am going to allow the shadow Minister to finish, but I will hear him. He is perfectly within his rights if he chooses not to give way.

[Neil O’Brien]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some people really do not want to hear the voices of the victims. [Interruption.]

Even though no one in authority has been held to account, the Government seem to think that there is nothing further to be learned. I do not think that is right. This afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that there should a national inquiry if victims wanted one. Victims are calling for one, so what are we waiting for?

There are real challenges that we should be facing: recruitment, discipline and attendance. Instead, we have a Bill that just takes us backwards. As one of the nation’s leading educators, Sir Daniel Moynihan, said today on “World at One”:

“We are worried in the sector about what the problems are that the changes are designed to fix. We can offer better pay. It’s not clear why constraining that solves a problem. Why academies…should be constrained beats me…We’re hoping that some of this will be amended. It would be a terrible shame if the reforms that Labour introduced over 20 years ago…were watered down.”

Likewise, the Confederation of School Trusts is warning that the loss of academy freedoms proposed in the Bill risk making it

“more difficult for trusts to do the hard work of improving schools in the most challenging circumstances”.

I remember what state schools were like in the ’80s and ’90s. In my school, it was chaotic, with loads of fights, discredited progressive teaching methods, failed kids and good teachers being ground down. [Interruption.] You think it is funny, but the life chances of the kids I was at school with were flushed away by your disastrous ideology. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The shadow Minister will know that I did not flush away any child’s life chances. Perhaps he is bringing his remarks to a conclusion.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am. On a happy note, I also got to see the best of state education. I went to an amazing sixth form that benefited from the freedoms that the Conservative Government gave it. I pay tribute to the inspiring principal of that college, Kevin Conway, who helped so many kids in Huddersfield in his lifetime. I saw what state education could be. I saw the best of it. Freedom works, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would not be here today if it did not.

I am heartbroken by the Bill. It genuinely trashes the cross-party reforms that we have had over 30 years. We can see they have worked, yet we are trashing them. I am begging Ministers—begging them—to change their minds.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. We will start our questioning.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Q The first question is for Dr Homden. You talked about some of the things in the Bill that you would like to see amended. I wonder whether you could expand on that, and particularly your point about the timeliness of intervention.

Dr Homden: Particularly, we are concerned that some of the very sensible provisions in the Bill, such as breakfast clubs, are not extended to infants in the early years. There are a number of areas where early years extension would be appropriate, so while we recognise that this is a Bill on children’s wellbeing and schools, none the less the children’s wellbeing elements for the youngest children are particularly important—especially the opportunities for children to receive free meals, and also for the extension of admissions priority. The provisions for the extension of recognition of quality for teaching staff could and should be extended to early years workforce issues.

The second key area is the fact that there are no provisions in relation to children’s access to advocacy—particularly 16 and 17-year-olds, those who are excluded from school, and those who face other forms of crisis in, for example, unregulated accommodation. While others will call for broader extensions of advocacy, these are the focus areas that we would recommend and commend to you as being the most effective ways to ensure that young people have the information they need to exercise decision making, and that they can hold the system to account.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q I have follow-up questions specifically about some of the measures in the Bill about family group decision making—a thing that a lot of people generally are very supportive of. My only slight concern about it is at what stage in the process that happens, and whether, if it is at the point where you are seeking a court order, that is possibly too late in the process, where it is no longer voluntary or consensual. I wonder whether you thought we should look at bringing that forward in the process, or—you mentioned young children—whether it is something that needs to happen much earlier, particularly for the under-twos and the particularly vulnerable child in dangerous households.

Dr Homden: That is indeed an extremely valid point. Many local authorities will offer family group decision making support prior to pre-proceedings, and it is important that the new duty introduced does not take away earlier opportunities to extend the involvement of the family network when children’s services are involved. Timescales are indeed acknowledged to be of critical importance in family law, and statutory guidance should make it clear that nothing in the family group decision making requirement, or the provisions of the Bill, should slow down processes, or delay solutions for babies and children.

Overall, we support the promotion of the family first decision-making approach, but point out that while we understand that it is the preference not to specify a particular model, the evidence from the randomised control trial that Coram conducted is in relation to family group conferencing, and that evidence shows very clearly the importance of independent support, and of consistent and sufficient practice. So we do call upon the consideration of the ways in which there would be a strengthening of consistency and quality of approach to ensure that this really meets the needs of children and families.

It is also worth remembering that family group decision making will not necessarily divert children from care. There has been a significant increase in kinship foster placements, now representing 19% of all active households, but all our casework in the Coram Children’s Legal Centre demonstrates that family group conferencing and well-delivered family group decision making most certainly help.

Anne Longfield: I will briefly add my support on that. There is widespread support for upholding the principles of family group conferencing. In my experience, that intervention can transform children’s and families’ experience at that point and avert decisions being made about them without their involvement, including children, but it has to be done properly. We all want families to be involved, but this is around a process of involving families and children in solutions. That will have a point that it needs to get over, in terms of the mechanisms around it and the actual formality of that. So there is something there that there is widespread support for strengthening.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Do you share, Dr Homden, the concern that we should be very clear that this should not delay decision making?

Dr Homden: Absolutely.

[The Chair]

This is a reminder to Members that is important to catch the Clerk’s eye if you want to ask a question. We will try to get everybody in during the morning and give everybody the same crack of the whip. I will now call the Minister to ask questions.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from two more witnesses. We must stick to the timings: this session must end at 10.30 am. Will you briefly introduce yourselves, please?

Andy Smith: My name is Andy Smith. I am the president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. In my day job, I am director of children’s services and adult social services in Derby.

Ruth Stanier: I am Ruth Stanier, assistant policy director at the Local Government Association.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Thank you for coming. We have an important principle in local government called the new burdens doctrine, which is that if the Government put a burden on local government, they pay for it. Given the various new duties and obligations that the Bill will place on local government, do you agree that that principle should be followed and that local government should be funded to implement those duties? Secondly, what is your understanding of the current situation? Is funding being offered to implement the duties in the Bill?

Ruth Stanier: Thank you for those extremely important questions. We very much welcome many of the measures in this Bill, which we have long been calling for, but they must be appropriately resourced to have the impact that we want.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Would you like to see resourcing clearly specified in this Bill?

Ruth Stanier: You are absolutely right that the new burdens doctrine must be applied in the usual way. There are a number of measures in this Bill for which additional funding will be required, for example the new multi-agency units. We are encouraged that at this stage we are already having early discussions with the Department about the implementation arrangements. We are yet to undertake the full cost estimates, but that work will be set in train with the Department.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q That is very helpful. Clause 18 provides for regulations to be made on agency workers and their pay. We would all like to spend less on all these different things, but even though we might be sympathetic to the ideas in the Bill, do you agree that if we just cap prices without taking action on supply, it will fail, because the underlying cause of the high prices has everything to do with supply and planning over time?

Andy Smith: You have to cover both. It has been incredibly important and positive that the Government have taken forward measures to tackle the cost of agency workers. We are seeing the impact of the measures that have taken place already. For example, on Friday in my region we were talking about the implications and impact of the changes that have started to be implemented. We are seeing less churn of workers from one authority to another; we are also seeing some agency workers move over to the permanent books of councils, which is better for children.

It is also important to ensure that we have a sufficient approach and strategy for the workforce generally. That covers all elements of the Bill, so it would include social work but also other professions and other agencies where we have particular challenges. Yes, we absolutely need to focus on the recruitment and retention of social workers as well as tackling the costs of agency workers. I believe that that is already under way and is making some impact.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Are there any other ways in which you would like to see the Bill amended?

Andy Smith: I think some things are missing from the Bill. There are some things that will be positive; no doubt we will come to those. What was disappointing, from the policy paper to where we are now, was the lack of corporate parenting: we would have expected to see all Government Departments committing to corporate parenting. We see that lack as a real disappointment, actually. It feels like a once-in-a-generation time for us to focus on the wider responsibility that all Departments should have for our children in care, so that is a particular gap in the Bill.

Ruth Stanier: I very much agree on extending the corporate parenting duty—this must be the right time and the right Bill to do that, and the Government have already committed to doing so in a recent policy paper, so it is really important we get that included. We were also disappointed that the Bill does not have powers for Ofsted to inspect multi-academy trusts, which was a Government election manifesto commitment. We support the similar new powers relating to care placement providers, but in respect of trusts that is an omission.

I am sure you will want to come on to discuss the elective home education provisions. We do support those, but there could be scope for them to go further. In an ideal world, councils would have the power to visit any child where there were concerns. Obviously, that would need to be appropriately resourced, but there could be scope to go further on that provision.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

Q Thank you both for being witnesses before the Committee. A question to you both: what impact will the Bill have on children and their families entering, or at risk of entering, the children’s social care system?

Andy Smith: A strength in the Bill is the focus on family help and early intervention. We talk a lot about the cost of the care system, but we need to see this in a much more strategic context and sense. We know that there is a lot of evidence. We published research last week showing that for councils that have been able to invest and maintain early help services, it has a direct impact on reducing the number of children coming into the more statutory end of things within children’s social care or the looked-after children service.

The challenge is that we have real variability around early help services across the country, because of the difficulties there have been with council budgets over the past 10 years. Seeing these reforms and the focus on family help in its totality—this goes back to the earlier question about the funding required to implement the reforms—will make a positive impact. It is ultimately better for children to remain with their families. If not, there is a big focus on kinship care, where children remain in the family network. That is a real strength in the Bill.

Ruth Stanier: I completely agree with that. We very much support the measures on support for kinship families. We think that is a very important area.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Julie McCulloch, senior director of strategy, policy and professional development services at the Association of School and College Leaders, and Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. You are very welcome. Do you both want to say a brief word of introduction?

Paul Whiteman: I am Paul Whiteman. We broadly support the provisions within the Bill, as far as they connect with schools. The Bill builds upon a lot of the policy positions and ambitions that we have held for some time. We do not see it as a revolution in education, but the provisions are broadly sensible.

Julie McCulloch: We are in a similar place in our schools. There is much in the Bill that aligns with our existing policy positions. We have a few logistical questions about how some of the proposals might play out, and perhaps some questions about how they sit within the Government’s broader vision and strategy for education, but we are broadly in favour of the proposals in the Bill.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Good morning, and thank you for coming. Julie, on your logistical questions, ASCL said in its statement that

“work will be needed to get these measures right…Further changes must be done with care and must not seem ideological.”

You talked about some of the issues that you want to see addressed as we amend the Bill. What are they?

Julie McCulloch: They are largely about the fact that these proposals are landing in a particular context. There are three areas where those logistical challenges exist. The first is that they are landing in the context of a system that has been systematically underfunded for many years. That particularly relates to the proposal about breakfast clubs. We have some questions about ensuring sufficient funding for breakfast clubs.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Can I press you on that one? I do not understand from the Bill how breakfast clubs are supposed to work. Obviously, many primary schools already offer a breakfast club, and they charge for it. If you are now supposed to offer 30 minutes and a free breakfast—I think the going rate will be 60p in the first wave—how does that work with schools’ current charging arrangements? Are they allowed to charge before that period, so there will be both charging and a free session? Is that your understanding of what the Bill does?

Julie McCulloch: That is our understanding. Is that yours too, Paul? There will be the provision of additional funding for the children who most need it, but you can provide provision around that.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q So you will have two tiers. What is your understanding of the position on secondary school breakfast clubs? Have you had any undertakings on the future of the free school breakfast programme that exists in secondary schools, or the holiday activities and food programme? Is it your understanding that there is secure funding for those things?

Julie McCulloch: I am not sure I would be as confident as that. We have started to have some conversations about that, but not detailed ones.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q You would welcome greater certainty about those things, presumably.

Julie McCulloch: We absolutely would, and continued funding.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Is there anything else that you would like amended in the schools section of the Bill?

Julie McCulloch: I have two other thoughts, just to finish my point about the context within which this is landing. The second is about the challenge around recruitment and retention in schools. Although the proposal about qualified teacher status is absolutely welcome and the right thing in principle, we have had some concerns from our members about the challenges of ensuring that can be followed through, when they are already really struggling to recruit.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Do you think it is sometimes better to have a good professional person whom the head thinks is a good teacher, rather than no teacher at all?

Julie McCulloch: In some cases, yes. That is a sad place to find ourselves, but sometimes that is the case, particularly when we are looking at vocational subjects at the top end of secondary school and into colleges. There are some excellent teachers and lecturers in further education colleges and secondary schools on vocational subjects, who do not necessarily have qualified teacher status, and we need to make sure we can retain them.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q You can be a good teacher even if you do not have QTS. You can be the right person.

Julie McCulloch: Yes. We absolutely in principle think that there should be qualified teacher status, but it is about that contextual piece.

The third area where we have some concerns about the context is the extent to which there is capacity in local authorities—you have just heard from local authority colleagues—to pick up some of the additional requirements on them. Again, we do not have any concerns about the principle, but some of our members are concerned about whether there is that capacity, and whether that expertise still exists in local authorities.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Do you have a sense that a large number of schools are not providing a broad and balanced education at the moment? Do you have a sense of how many schools are not following the national curriculum?

Julie McCulloch: No, it is absolutely not a significant number at all. We hear from our members that the vast majority do use the national curriculum as their starting point and as a benchmark, and they innovate on top of it.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q What do you think the problem is that that measure is trying to solve?

Julie McCulloch: In our view, it is right that there should be a core national entitlement curriculum for all children and young people; we think that is the right thing to do. The devil is in the detail—we are going through a curriculum review at the moment. Our view is that that entitlement is important—on the ground it might not make an enormous amount of difference, but it is still important.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q When it comes to school admissions, do you think the measures in the Bill will help local authorities to fulfil their statutory duties? Could you comment on how you think it will impact on children and schools?

Paul Whiteman: We do think it will help local authorities—we think there has been a gap in terms of their ability to ensure that their admissions duty is fully met. To that extent, the difficulty of some parents to find the school that their children really should go to has been fettered. Therefore, we think these provisions are broadly sensible and to be welcomed.

Julie McCulloch: We agree. The more join-up we can have between local authorities and schools on admissions the better; there are some areas where that is working really well already, and there are others where that statutory duty might help.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

Q Obviously, breakfast clubs are for primary schools, but hunger does not end at 11. Do either of you think that we should be extending provision of free school meals right up to 18?

Paul Whiteman: May I add something in response to your first question, and then deal with your second question? In terms of QTS, we agree with what Julia said, but would add that it is a legitimate expectation of pupils and parents that they are taught by someone who is qualified to do so. Therefore, the provisions in the Bill meaning that people travel towards becoming qualified teachers are very important. That necessity has a marginal impact on recruitment and retention, frankly.

Recruitment and retention is so much more than the flexibilities that may or may not be allowed to academy chains under pay and conditions. Those are sparingly and judiciously used at the moment—we have no objection to how they have been used so far. But those flexibilities have a marginal impact. What affects recruitment and retention is more around workload stress, the stress of accountability, and flexibility within employment, rather than those flexibilities.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q A quick question for Julie. You said it was not clear whether the Bill currently delivers a floor, not a ceiling. Would you welcome it if we all passed an amendment to make that very clear?

Julie McCulloch: Yes.

[Amanda Martin]

Q What is the importance in the Bill of providing a clear legal basis for sharing information with the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children?

Paul Whiteman: We absolutely support that. A statutory duty for schools and educators to be consulted in that respect is necessary, and it will widen the voices within that. After all, it is in schools that children are most present and visible, and teachers and school leaders already play a role in noticing changes and issues.

Julie McCulloch: We feel the same way. I would simply add that it is a growing set of responsibilities on schools—burden is not the right word, because schools absolutely need to do it. We are hearing a lot about the pressures on designated safeguarding leads in schools. While we also welcome schools’ having a statutory role here, we need to recognise that schools will need support and sufficient resources to deliver that.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now hear oral evidence from Jacky Tiotto, chief executive of CAFCASS—the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. Please could you introduce yourself?

Jacky Tiotto: Thank you. My name is Jacky Tiotto. I am the chief executive of CAFCASS and have been there for five and a half years.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Good morning and thank you for coming. Clause 1 states:

“Before a local authority in England makes an application for an order”

it has to

“offer a family group decision-making meeting”.

Those meetings are generally a very good thing. They are in statutory guidance already, but I have two nagging worries as we move to mandate a good thing, as it were. The first is about pace. I worry that through people using the courts or their legal rights, some people will slow this down, or I worry that the local authority will sometimes worry about fulfilling this requirement when the priority should be the pace of getting a child away from a dangerous family. And I worry, on the other hand, that because we are saying that they should think about this and do more of these meetings just before they put an order in, you are at the point where the meeting is not going to be that useful because you are already not into a consensual process. We want to try and get local authorities to do this earlier more often. Do you have worries about the pace, particularly for very young, very vulnerable children? Could we amend the clause to try to address some of my nagging doubts?

Jacky Tiotto: I think they are good doubts to have. I should say at this point that CAFCASS is not involved before the application to court has been issued, so it does not technically affect the work that we do. But when the proceedings are issued, we are interested in why they have been issued and what has not happened for the child. Our position is that if you are introducing something largely consensual about engaging people in the care of children in their family at a point when you are going to formalise a letter that says, “If you do not act now, we may remove your children,” I think it will be very confusing.

As drafted, the Bill probably could move it down to the point at which there are formal child protection procedures starting so that the family can get to know what the concerns are, work with the child protection plan for longer, understand what the concerns are and demonstrate whether the protection can happen. On the second point, if the Bill were to stay as drafted at the edge of care, I think there are risks for very young children, and babies in particular. The meetings will be difficult to set up. People will not turn up. They will be rescheduled—

[Neil O'Brien]

Q What is the average length of time?

Jacky Tiotto: I do not know, but I would think it is a number of weeks.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Is a number of weeks a potentially dangerous thing?

Jacky Tiotto: For very young children when you are concerned, if they are still with the parents, which is sometimes the case, or even with a foster carer, you want permanent decisions quickly. That does not negate the need for the family to be involved. You can have it much earlier because you have been worried for a while at that point.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q So if you had the power, you could get this Bill into exactly the way you would draft it. With lots of experience in this world, you would change it so that we moved this thing in clause 1, part 1, so that it was focused on the point where there are initial child protection conversations rather than being in addition to. That is incredibly helpful. Is there anything else you would do to amend the Bill?

Jacky Tiotto: There are a few bits that it would be good to talk about. I do not know if you have a set of questions.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q My real question is: what would you amend? We are trying to find out how we should change the Bill as it goes through.

Jacky Tiotto: If I speak too long—because this is a great opportunity—please interrupt me. To go back to family group decision making and make a point about CAFCASS, we are the largest children’s social work organisation in England. We see 140,000 children through proceedings every year. The Bill tends to focus on those who are in public law proceedings. Two thirds of the children we work with are in private law proceedings, where there are family disputes about who children spend their time with and where they live. Very often, those children are in families where conflict is very intense. There are risks to them; there is domestic abuse. The Bill is silent on children in private law proceedings, and I think there is an opportunity for that to be different.

One suggestion I would like to make on CAFCASS’s behalf is that family group decision making should be offered to families where the court has ordered a section 7 report—a welfare report that, if ordered to do so, the local authority has to produce for the court in respect of what it advises about where children should live and who they should spend time with. I think the opportunity for a family group decision-making meeting for those families is important. I just put that on the table, if I may.

I want to talk a bit about clause 10, which is on deprivation of liberty—I do not know whether you have spoken about it yet. Obviously, CAFCASS is involved in 98% of those applications; to give you a sense of the span, last year there were 1,200 applications to deprive a child of their liberty. As I am sure you will know from the research briefing, that is an increase of about 800% since 2017, because the provision to secure children is not there. This is therefore a welcome change to section 25, but it is a missed opportunity to deal with the arrangements around deprivation, and some better, stronger regulations could be made for those children—who, let us face it, are actually being secured, or deprived of their liberty.

Our data shows that 20% of those children are aged 13 or under. Currently, if a local authority applies for a place in a secure unit for a child aged 13 or under, the Secretary of State for Education has to approve that application. I think an assumption is made in the Bill that that strength would remain in the amendment. We need to make it clear that, for all applications for 13-and-unders into places where they will be deprived, the Secretary of State should still approve. That has been unnecessary because the courts have been using their jurisdiction to deprive children. This clause will remove that, and make the accommodation usable legally, but we need to ensure that for young children it comes back. That is one point.

The second point is that for those young children, the review of their deprivation should be stipulated in terms of how regularly that deprivation is reviewed. For a 10-year-old deprived of their liberty, a week is a long time. The children who we work with tell us that they do not know what they have to do to not be deprived of their liberty, and very young children will be confused. So the frequency of review, I think, becomes more regular if you are younger.

I very much feel that the Department for Education should definitely consider what has happened to the child before the deprivation application is made. From our data, only 7% of those children were the subject of child protection plans, and it is hard to imagine going from not being protected by a statutory child protection plan to being in a court where they might deprive you. The relationship between child protection and deprivation needs strengthening.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q What would that look like? Do you have to do a case review?

Jacky Tiotto: As soon as that child becomes the subject of a concern, such that you might be making an application to deprive, you hold a child protection conference and you have a plan in place to protect that child beyond the deprivation, so including and beyond—it helps with the exit.

The final point is about the type of people who apply to run this provision as amended: Ofsted needs to be really sure who they are and what their experience is. I have run this provision; I have worked in it. These kids are really needy. They need specialist, highly qualified people, and at the moment the provision that they get is not run by those sorts of people.

[Stephen Morgan]

Q Jacky, thanks for presenting evidence to the Committee. I have two questions: one about local authorities, the second about kinship. On local authorities, what impact do you think mandating local authorities to offer a family group decision-making meeting will have on families and children?

Jacky Tiotto: The intention to be family-centred and to promote families as being the best place for children to grow up in is a good one. As I said, I think it is too late when you are in a panic and get a letter that says, “We may remove your children”—you are going to engage very differently at that point than if you were involved earlier. I think it is a good thing, but the problem with mandation is that just because you say it has to happen does not necessarily mean that people will come, and it does not necessarily offer protection to children. The principle is right but how it becomes operationalised will be important.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

Thank you. I am a vice-president of the Local Government Association, but as I will not be making any comments, that may not be relevant.

Examination of Witness

Dame Rachel de Souza gave evidence.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Q89 Thank you for coming—welcome. I want to ask for your view on the second half of the Bill, on schools. We have heard a lot of criticism of it from the Confederation of School Trusts, some of our leading trusts and, indeed, a couple of Labour MPs. What is your view on the schools, rather than the wellbeing, part of the Bill?

Dame Rachel de Souza: I am the Children’s Commissioner and have been since 2021, and before that I was a school leader in the most disadvantaged areas for 20 years, so I am very interested. I am pleased to see a Bill on children’s wellbeing; it is great that we are getting some legislation on that. I was well consulted around the first part of the Bill, on wellbeing, and I was able to take the children’s voice through. I worked closely with the Department for Education and others to ensure that it was honed, refined and made really good, as I did on some bits of the schools part. But I do not think that anybody got to see the schools bit until it was published.

On the schools bit, what I feel more than anything is that we now have a period of time when we need to see a vision for a new, vibrant and transformative schools system—how it will work locally, with local authorities, to do the best for children, particularly the most vulnerable children. I have a number of outstanding questions around that.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q What do you think of the curtailment of academy freedoms in the Bill? It has now been published, so you have seen it, albeit that you were not talked to before. What do you think about the moves to scale back the academy programme, the end of academy orders, and LAs setting up new schools? If you were doing this, is that the direction you would want to go in?

Dame Rachel de Souza: Look, I need the school system to be as ambitious for children—as Children’s Commissioner, I represent children—as they are for themselves. I had hoped that we would get to a point where we were not talking about old binaries—academies or council schools—but talking about schools, families of schools and building up our local authorities so that everyone can play their part to support standards in the post-lockdown period.

I have two issues with the academies provisions. First, I cannot let children remain in failing schools, so if those are going, I need to know what is going to happen. Childhood lasts a very short time, so if a child is in a failing school, how will those schools be improved, immediately and effectively? Secondly, as well as a real vision for the schools system—I know that it is there—I would like to see what will happen to attainment data, under what is envisaged as replacing it, so that no child, particularly the most vulnerable, is disadvantaged.

I was a headteacher for the first time in 2006. It was a Tony Blair-sponsored academy—I was his No. 67. That school had been failing for 20 years, and I got it to outstanding with the support of everyone around me. It has never gone back to less than good. Any new system has to deliver for the most vulnerable as well.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) has raised some concerns, as has the Confederation of School Trusts, about the end of academy orders and the fact that because academisation is no longer automatic, there will once again be the prospect of legal action, lots of community campaigns against these things, and potentially quite long delays. She said on Second Reading that children in those schools do not have time to wait. Do you agree with her?

Dame Rachel de Souza: I think, Neil, that you have given quite a thoughtful comment, which people new to education might not quite get. Probably the main reason for academy orders was to try to expedite improvement quickly against a backlash. Would it not be great if we could get everyone on side to be able to act really quickly, together, to improve schools that need improving? I am not going to get hung up on this bit. What I want to see is the vision for how we are going to work together with the best knowledge we have about school improvement, and with a sense of absolute urgency about making sure that no child is sitting in a failing school, because childhood lasts such a short time. What makes a great school? Whatever background you are from—whether you are from the academy sector or the local authority sector—the evidence is clear: we need a great headteacher and great teachers allowed to do their jobs, with support from a family of schools, whatever that family of schools is. That is what we need.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

Q Dame Rachel, thank you for giving evidence to the Committee today. Returning to the benefits of the Bill, can you explain what you think the benefits of introducing a single unique identifier will be to the safeguarding of all children?

Dame Rachel de Souza: Yes. Before I do, I want to praise the fact that the children’s bit of the Bill really listens to children, because it has tried to do that. I want the schools bit to do the same. Since Minister Morgan is asking the question, I will say that he was the first person to speak to my ambassadors and actually try to take on board their views. That is important for all of us—we need to hear from children all the time.

I have been obsessed with the unique identifier from the second I got into my role. I do not need to spell out why—well, maybe I do. In my first couple of weeks in the role, I visited a violence reduction unit—a police crime reduction unit—in Bedfordshire, and it had a spreadsheet of children that were on nobody’s roll. They were not on any GP system or school roll; they were known by nobody. We cannot, in this century, with the tech capacity we have, find ourselves in that position.

I spoke to Professor Jay yesterday about the terrible abuse of young girls that has been going on and what to do about it. Do you know what she told me? She told me that one local area she was working with had a massive increase in sexually transmitted diseases in girls aged 13 and 14, but the health authority would not share the data with the police, under a completely misguided view about data sharing. My view is that we must invest in a unique identifier. Had Sara Sharif’s social workers had a unique identifier, they would have had the information and tech to know from other authorities she had been in that she was a child known to social services. The school would have known. Children, particularly vulnerable children, think we already know their stories. They think that we, the adults, are already talking to each other. For children, that is just how they think it should be—the adults who care for them should know.

Let me be clear, and be under no illusion: the parlous state of data systems means that the unique identifier will be a huge job. However, I am so pleased to see it committed to in the Bill. If there is one thing I would like to see before my term ends in the next couple of years, it is the unique identifier on the way. It will underpin so many things that we want in education, in child protection, in gluing the systems together and in the multi-agency work, so absolutely, we need it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Will the witnesses from Ofsted please introduce themselves?

Sir Martyn Oliver: I am Sir Martyn Oliver, His Majesty’s chief inspector at Ofsted.

Yvette Stanley: My name is Yvette Stanley, Ofsted’s national director for early years regulation and social care inspection and regulation.

Lee Owston: I am Lee Owston, one of His Majesty’s inspectors and Ofsted’s national director for education.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Thank you for coming. I have some short questions that do not need particularly long answers. Have you found evidence that academy schools are not teaching a broad and balanced curriculum? Are you finding lots of academies not doing that?

Sir Martyn Oliver: No, we do not find that.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Is there a major problem with schools employing teachers without qualified teacher status? Are non-QTS teachers not up to scratch? Would you regard it as a red flag if a school were employing non-QTS teachers? Would it make you think, “We’re probably heading towards a bad result here”?

Sir Martyn Oliver: We do not actually look at the backgrounds of teachers and check to that level of detail, so I could not give you a quantitative answer. I do know that increasingly, as schools are finding it difficult to recruit and retain staff, they are looking at alternative measures. It is massively important that people be qualified to teach children to the highest possible standard in the specialism in which they are delivering.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Do you recognise that sometimes a school can bring someone in who might be at a later point in their career and be highly specialised—perhaps a great sportsman, an IT person or a scientist—and that if the headteacher takes the view that they would be a good person for teaching, as an alternative to having no teacher, that can be the right decision?

Sir Martyn Oliver: Speaking as a previous headteacher, absolutely. Bringing in external expertise to supplement high-quality qualified teachers is clearly of benefit to children.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q The Bill will remove the academy order. How will the intervention regime work in future? At the moment, the Ofsted handbook states that

“if any key judgement is inadequate…we will place the school in a formal category of concern.”

How will that work in future? If a school is in the bottom tier of one of your new categories of assessment, what will happen?

Sir Martyn Oliver: The legal powers for Ofsted are that I identify to the Secretary of State a school that is in special measures or requires significant improvement. That requirement—from, I think, the Education and Inspections Act 2006—will not change. Ofsted will still be under a duty to pass that on to the Secretary of State. Very imminently, I will consult on a new framework that will strengthen and raise standards further. I am interested to see what the Department for Education will release alongside my consultation to explain those academy orders further.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Are we still waiting to hear what that intervention regime will look like?

Sir Martyn Oliver: Yes, but I think it is very imminent. I am very happy: I feel that we are going to hold the system to account to raise standards better than ever before.

[The Chair]

It will help if those Members who wanted to ask a question last time but were not called indicate if they want to ask a question in this session.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you. I will hand over to Neil O’Brien, the Opposition spokesperson.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Thank you for coming. Are there any things in the Bill that you think we should amend as it goes through? Are there things that you would like to improve further, or any ways that you would like us to change the Bill? Why don’t we start with Lynn?

Lynn Perry: The coalition broadly welcomes the potentially transformational proposals that are contained within the Bill, including those for a single unique identifier, which is one of the things that the coalition has been specifically calling for over a period of time. Multiple reviews have found that information sharing between agencies is problematic, so that is one of the things that we think could really aid child protection, safeguarding and multi-agency working. I would say that to really shift the dial we need further investment in early intervention and early help across our communities, and much greater focus on embedding that consistently and universally. We also need some further clarification on some of the areas that the single unique identifier will need for effective application, I think it is fair to say.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Can you unpack that a little bit?

Lynn Perry: Yes, certainly. I will raise the third area and then I will come back to that, if I may. The third area is mechanisms for ensuring that the voices, wishes, feelings and experiences of children and young people really influence the provisions in the Bill, and to put those at the heart of support.

On the single unique identifier, there are some questions that we think are worth some further scrutiny. The first of those is the question whether the single unique identifier would be assigned to all babies, children and young people, and a confirmation that that would be for children between the ages of nought and 18. We also think there is an opportunity to extend the use of the identifier, the scope of which is currently limited in the Bill to safeguarding and welfare purposes. A wider emphasis on wellbeing of children and young people and positive outcomes is one of the things that could be further considered here.

As ever, implementation cannot wait, and it would be helpful to have some indicative timescales for when the Secretary of State might introduce regulations for the consistent identifier and how people will be required to use it within their systems. Finally, while acknowledging the need for data protection, there is an opportunity to make better, data-informed decisions in the future about the commissioning and scoping of services that will effectively meet the needs of children and young people, as well as taking account of some of their emerging vulnerabilities and risk and need factors.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Mark, getting straight to the point, are there any amendments that you would like to see?

Mark Russell: I associate myself entirely with everything that my colleague has said, but I have a couple of extra points. I would want the Bill to include a measurement of children’s wellbeing. I welcome the fact that the title of the Bill mentions children’s wellbeing, but we have no measurement of children’s wellbeing. We in the Children’s Society measure children’s wellbeing, but we are a charity; we are measuring a sample of children rather than all children. The Government talk about wanting to be child-centred. A measurement of children’s wellbeing would be real data on what real children think about their lives, and that would provide a huge amount of information for local authorities to ensure that local services meet the needs of young people. That is one thing.

Secondly, I would welcome schools becoming a fourth statutory safeguarding partner, because so many safeguarding challenges are first identified by schools—I speak not just as the chief executive of a charity, but as a school governor. Thirdly, I hugely welcome the breakfast clubs and the changes to the rules on school uniform; the Children’s Society has campaigned on school uniform for many years. Those will help families. I understand why the Government have made the breakfast clubs a universal offer, but with limited funds, I would like to see secondary school children included in it, but with the breakfast clubs available first to children from families receiving universal credit. The free school meal allowance has not gone up for a very long time. We think that around 1 million children in this country who are living in poverty are not eligible for free school meals, and we know that hunger hugely limits what children can do in school and their learning. If we can change that, we will improve the opportunities for, and wellbeing of young people.

Katharine Sacks-Jones: I want to focus on the provisions on children in care and young care leavers. There are some welcome steps to better support care leavers. At the moment, young people leaving the care system face a care cliff, where support falls away, often on their 18th birthday. A huge number go on to face homelessness —one in three become homeless within two years of leaving care—and that has meant a big increase in statutory homelessness among care leavers: a 54% rise in the past five years. There is a real challenge to ensure that we better support young people leaving the care system.

In that context, extending Staying Close up to the age of 25 and making it a statutory provision is welcome, but we think the Bill could go further in strengthening the legal entitlement for young people leaving care. There are two areas in particular. The first is that we are concerned about the how the Bill assesses whether a young person’s welfare requires Staying Close support. Where you have those kinds of assessment, particularly in times of scarcity, the extra support is often rationed, which will mean that many young people are not eligible for it or are not assessed as being in need. We think that rationing needs to be removed. Instead, there should be an assumption that a young person leaving care does require some extra support; the question should be what that support looks like, and we would like to see the provisions in the Bill broadened to allow local authorities to provide other types of support beyond what the Bill provides for at the moment, which is largely advice and guidance.

We welcome the strengthening of the care leaver local offer to include provisions around housing and homelessness. As I said, those are big issues for young people leaving care. We also warmly welcome the Government’s recent amendment on homelessness intentionality, which would remove intentionality from care leavers. We hear from young people who have found themselves homeless because, for example, they accepted a place at university in a different part of the country, and they were then deemed by their home local authority to be intentionally homeless and so not eligible for further homelessness assistance. We think that needs to change. That is a welcome step.

We think the Bill could go further in looking at priority need for young people leaving care. At the moment, that goes up to 21; we think it should go up to the age of 25, in line with other entitlements for young care leavers. We are also disappointed not to see in the Bill the extension of corporate parenting—something that the Government have previously committed to.

There are some welcome measures that will increase oversight and accountability, and help with some of the structural challenges, in relation to the provision of homes for children. We do not think those go far enough in addressing the huge issue around the sufficiency of placements for children. That issue is seeing more and more children moved across the country, moved far from their local areas and being moved frequently—a huge amount of instability. That is a big challenge. We would like to see a requirement for a national strategy that looks at the issue of sufficiency and collects better data, as well as an annual report to Parliament on progress against that strategy. Finally, to reinforce the point made by colleagues, young people’s voices are really important. The importance of considering young people’s wishes and feelings is set out in other pieces of legislation, and there are a number of areas in the Bill that would benefit from the inclusion of that, too.

[Stephen Morgan]

Q Thank you for being witnesses before the Committee today. My first question is to Mark and Lynn. Mark, you mentioned the benefits of breakfast clubs earlier. Could you say a bit more about what you think the benefits will be for families during a cost of living crisis?

Mark Russell: Perhaps I should say that we are working with about 75,000 young people around the country, and so many more young people are reporting as being hungry than have been for quite some time. We know that families are under huge strain. We saw in our “Good Childhood Report” this year that 84% of parents were anxious about being able to pay their bills, and we also saw that one in three parents were struggling to pay for a hot meal every single day. As they are provided to all children in the school, I think breakfast clubs will provide a real sense of uniformity and equality, and will give every child the best possible start to the day. Children who are hungry cannot learn and cannot thrive. I have friends who are teachers, and they are telling me that in classrooms around the country they are seeing children who are hungry and living in homes that are cold. Anything that we can do to support families is really important, so I welcome breakfast clubs. As I said earlier, I would like to see secondary school children helped, and if the pot is limited, I would probably step back from universality and provide for those most in need.

Also, alongside that, this needs to link up with the Government’s child poverty strategy that is coming later this year, which we are very much looking forward to seeing, about how we lift more and more families out of poverty. According to the stats, there are 4.3 million children in this country in poverty, and those children will not get the best start in life or thrive in school if they are hungry and cannot succeed. I obviously very much welcome the measures on that in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We now move on to representatives from the Churches. Could you begin by introducing yourselves, please?

Nigel Genders: My name is Nigel Genders. I am the chief education officer for the Church of England, which means that I have the national responsibility for the Church of England’s work in education, and I oversee 4,700 schools, which educate 1 million children.

Paul Barber: I am Paul Barber. I am director of the Catholic Education Service, which is the education agency of the Bishop’s Conference of England and Wales, and we provide just over 2,000 schools across England.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Thank you both for coming. My first question is to you, Paul. The last Government promised to lift the cap on faith school admissions and consulted on doing just that. Is that something you would still like to happen and potentially be put into the Bill?

Paul Barber: The cap is a policy rather than law. We would very much like to see the cap lifted. My understanding of the current policy is that it applies to free schools, and we would very much like to see that lifted. The consultation took place and there has not, as yet, been a Government response to that.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Do you have a timescale for when the Government are going on reply to that consultation?

Paul Barber: I do not—that is not in my hands.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q I just wondered whether we might get an answer during the passage of the Bill. I have a question for both of you. There was a thought-provoking leader in the TES the other morning that talked about the lack of discussion in the Bill, as well as more generally, on discipline. The Bill is largely silent on discipline, even though we know it is one the biggest issues affecting teachers, and Teacher Tapp surveys show that it is a huge issue for teachers and many students as well. Do you have particular thoughts on what you would like to see in the Bill, or more broadly, on discipline that would improve your ability to run orderly schools and protect teachers? There are obviously things out there like behaviour hubs, the discipline survey and questions about alternative provision. You both have very deep experience across the whole piece, so I am interested in your thoughts about what we could be doing further in the Bill and more generally.

Nigel Genders: You are right to raise the issue of behaviour. When we talk to teachers across the country, one of the biggest things that puts people off teaching, in terms of the retention and recruitment crisis, is children’s behaviour. I am not sure there are particular things that you need legislation for in that space; it is about just giving teachers greater confidence. We are doing work in teacher training and leadership training to equip teachers to be really fantastic teachers, which are all important tools available to the system to really prioritise that area. I cannot think of anything particularly in the legislative space that would be needed.

Paul Barber: I agree with Nigel that discipline is definitely a factor in the recruitment and retention of teachers, and it is something that we need to give some attention to. Like Nigel, I do not think there is anything specific that is required legislatively, but I think what is needed is an overall accountability framework within which schools have the flexibility to respond to the needs of their particular pupil populations. Our schools have a very good track record of being orderly, and I think that is one of the reasons why they are very popular with parents. It is about school leaders and professionals being able to do what is in the best interest of their pupils and enabling the behaviour to be what it should be in our schools.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q One of the major changes in the Bill is the extension of the national curriculum, for the first time, to absolutely all schools. At the same time, the curriculum is being changed and rewritten. I have a high-level question and a specific one. The high-level one is about the different visions for our schools. One vision would stress the importance of diversity and argue that there are different ways of educating and that schools can and should do things differently. I do not know whether you buy into that vision.

My second, more specific question is whether there is anything you would have concerns about being in the curriculum. I am particularly thinking of religious education and topics like that. Are there ideas out there that you would be concerned about being forced into all schools?

Nigel Genders: As previous panels have said, there is a slight complexity about the timing of the Bill and the intention to bring in a national curriculum for everyone. In broad principle, I think it is right. There are one or two caveats I will go on to talk about, but in broad principle it is right to create a level playing field and have a broad and balanced curriculum across the piece for everybody. The complexity is that this legislation is happening at the same time as the curriculum and assessment review, so our schools are being asked to sign up to a general curriculum for everybody without knowing what that curriculum is likely to be.

Certainly among the schools and leaders I have spoken to the hope is that through the process of the curriculum review, and certainly in the evidence we have been giving to that, we will end up with a much broader, richer balance of both academic and vocational and technical skills within the curriculum. We hope to have something of broad appeal to everybody that is at a high level, and under which everybody can find an equal place in that space. But we do not know at the moment.

[The Chair]

We do not want to go too far into the curriculum today, because it is not really part of the Bill.

Paul Barber: I will keep my remarks brief. We have a very clear understanding of what a curriculum is in a Catholic school. It is very much a broad, balanced and holistic curriculum in which there are no siloes and the curriculum subjects interact with each other. There is of course the centrality of RE, which you mentioned. We are hopeful that the review will provide a framework within which we will be able to deliver alongside other views of curricula in other schools.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Q Forgive me—we are very short on time. I was talking about a council’s ability to stop a popular school expanding, for example. You both mentioned earlier that you have some really quite popular schools, and now the council will have much more an ability not to let that happen.

Paul Barber: Sorry; I misunderstood. You are talking about the restrictions on schools unilaterally changing their published admission number. Our position on that is that it is because of this relationship between admissions and the planning of school places, which must be planned in some way. Our diocese has a long track record of decades of working with its local authorities and with the diocese in the Church of England to work out what is required in the future, and looking forward for places and planning that. Having some kind of regulation of schools’ published admissions numbers is quite helpful in ensuring that that works smoothly, because if you plan it and three schools then arbitrarily decide to increase their published admission number, that creates some real problems locally with place planning.

Nigel Genders: We would agree with that. Not to rehearse all that Paul has just said, but a further point is that when it comes to resourcing local authorities to carry out their role in the allocation and direction of schools to take particular pupils, we are really keen to see that done in a way that makes fairness the arbitrating factor to ensure that there is a real fairness of approach. The collaboration between maintained and academy and diocese and local authority very much needs to happen, and we would welcome that.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q I have a very specific question on small rural primary schools attempting to deliver breakfast clubs, potentially with a very small number of staff. What is your understanding of whether the time spent doing breakfast clubs will count as directed time?

[The Chair]

Let us have a fairly quick answer. One other Member would like to ask a question as well.

[Neil O'Brien]

Do we know whether that is the case?

Nigel Genders: There is the question of how to make all that possible within the allotted hours that staff can be directed. It needs resourcing. It does not have to be teachers who provide those breakfast clubs—

[Neil O'Brien]

Q No, but what if it is a teacher in your little schools?

Nigel Genders: They will have to be resourced to do it in other ways to make it possible.

[The Chair]

The last question is from Ian Sollom.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We will now move on to representatives from various academies. If you could begin by introducing yourselves, that would be helpful to the Committee.

Luke Sparkes: I am Luke Sparkes, and I lead the Dixons Academy Trust. We run urban complex schools in Leeds, Bradford, Manchester and Liverpool.

Sir Dan Moynihan: I am Dan Moynihan, CEO for the Harris Federation. We run 55 academies in and around London, most of which were previously failing schools.

Sir Jon Coles: I am John Coles, and I run United Learning, which is a group of just over 100 schools nationally—again, mostly previously failing schools. Before the 13 years I have spent doing that, I spent 15 years in the Department for Education, and the last four on the board.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Thank you for being here. I want to direct my first question to Jon and Dan. You have both been quite critical of the loss of academy freedoms in this Bill. Could I persuade you to say a bit more about why that matters? Why do those freedoms matter? What do they enable you to do? Do you accept reassurances from the Government, who are saying, “No, no, you’ve misunderstood: the Bill doesn’t reduce your freedoms; it just increases other people’s freedoms”, or do you think that it would be helpful to amend the Bill further in order to ensure those freedoms? We will start with Jon and then go to Dan.

Sir Jon Coles: My top concern is about pay and conditions freedoms. We take schools that have got themselves into serious difficulty and look to turn them around. If you want to turn around schools that have failed seriously—often generationally—to give children a good standard of education, clearly you need to attract very good people to come and work in those places; the quality of a school is never going to exceed the quality of its teachers. Therefore, the things that we do with pay and conditions are designed to make sure that we can attract and retain the very best teachers to do the toughest jobs, which I think is our fundamental role as a trust.

I think we really need those freedoms. They are very important to us. Obviously, that applies to this Bill, in relation to schoolteachers’ pay and conditions, but it also applies to the Employment Rights Bill, in relation to the school support staff negotiating body. Those are fundamentally important to us.

I have been hugely encouraged by the Secretary of State’s remarks that what she wants is a floor but no ceiling, and that is something that we can absolutely work with. I hope that that is what we see coming through. At this moment, that is not what the Bill says; it says that we have to abide by the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document. I think there is an ongoing conversation to be had about whether that is where we end up, because that is not quite a floor but no ceiling.

[Neil O'Brien]

Having looked at that document, it does have a whole bunch of different maximums in it. It has quite specific maximums as well as minimums.

Sir Jon Coles: The thing about the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document is that it is fundamentally a contract. Section 122 of the Education Act 2002—it happens to be an Act that I took through Parliament as a Bill manager, when I was a civil servant—essentially says that the Secretary of State may, by order, issue what is commonly known as the pay order, but the pay order includes a lot of conditions. Section 122 of the Act says that that applies as if it were a contract. Indeed, if you are a teacher in a maintained school, typically your contract will literally say, “You are employed under the terms of the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document,” so it is your contract.

Therefore, the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document has to act as a contract. It has to be specific. A teacher looking it up has to be able to see, “What are my terms and conditions? Have I been treated properly?” and so on. That is how the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document needs to work, so if we have to abide by it precisely, that is what we would have to abide by.

I think that officials—I speak as an ex-official—should be asked to look again at whether the Bill they have produced for Ministers does what Ministers want it to do, and whether it actually provides a floor but no ceiling, or whether there is something slightly different that would enact Ministers’ policy.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q That was a superbly diplomatic answer—particularly the end of it. I will come on to Dan. You talked about QTS freedoms and the importance of being able to employ mature people in STEM and the like, and the risk that not having that freedom might put some of them off. I will just ask you about the freedoms on curriculum and things like that, and how those are being used by academies and trusts at the moment to find solutions that are right for individual situations. My impression is that those freedoms are quite often used to focus on core subjects in areas of high deprivation where there is great difficulty, and to have a model that works in those areas. It seems quite important for you.

Sir Dan Moynihan: We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects. Of course, that is subject to Ofsted. Ofsted comes in, inspects and sees whether what you are doing is reasonable.

That flexibility has allowed us to widen the curriculum out again later and take those schools on to “outstanding” status. We are subject to Ofsted scrutiny. It is not clear to me why we would need to follow the full national curriculum. What advantage does that give? When we have to provide all the nationally-recognised qualifications —GCSEs, A-levels, SATs—and we are subject to external regulation by Ofsted, why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Luke, you wrote a very interesting piece in the TES the other day about the importance of variety and difference between schools. You work in some exceptionally disadvantaged areas, turning around particularly difficult schools. I saw that you had used the academy freedoms to offer the nine-day fortnight so that teachers can have more preparation time, particularly because they are working in quite a demanding environment. How are you using those freedoms and how useful are they to you?

Luke Sparkes: They are very useful when it comes to conditions. As Jon was saying, the narrative coming through about a floor and no ceiling is encouraging. I can see that working for pay, but I am not sure how that would work for conditions. My significant concerns with the Bill are about conditions. We have done more than most as a trust to try to position ourselves as a modern organisation. We know that post-millennials are not going to accept the norms that currently exist in our sector. We have also tried to overcome the rigidity of the job with innovations such as the nine-day fortnight. That innovation is starting to diffuse across the sector.

We want to be even bolder. We are really starting to think about how we can totally re-imagine the school workforce. That is because most complex schools—the kind of schools that we lead—have become, in many ways, the fourth emergency service. That is by stealth and not by choice. We have had to address the scope and intensity of the job.

I wanted to make that position clear. It is from that position and understanding that we still believe that a rigid set of expectations around conditions will stifle innovation—the kind of innovation that the three of us have led across our trusts. Leaders working in our context need the freedom to do things differently. That, of course, was the point of Labour’s academy policy in the first place. I accept that in some instances, it is possible to negotiate around standard conditions, but not everybody can do that. The innovations we are leading will not be scaleable if we are all forced to align to a set of rigid standards.

It is also worth knowing that our most successful schools at Dixons—the ones that are getting the best results for disadvantaged students nationally—would have to fundamentally change as schools if they had to align to a set of rigid standards. That would be bound to impact negatively on outcomes for children, and not just academic outcomes. It would be a significant backward step. Finally, an interesting point is that our most innovative schools—the ones that are using their freedoms the most—actually have the highest staff engagement scores. These freedoms benefit and are attractive to staff.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Would you say that the Bill, broadly speaking, erodes that kind of freedom and diversity in the system? That is at the moment, as drafted—it can change.

Luke Sparkes: Certainly, around the areas that I have just described.

[Stephen Morgan]

Q I have two unrelated questions on which I am keen to hear from all three of you. What assessment have you made of the introduction of registers of children not in school and how they will help schools and local authorities to support vulnerable children?

Sir Dan Moynihan: It is an excellent idea. Too many children disappear off-roll and are not monitored sufficiently. I would say it probably does not go far enough. When any child leaves the school roll, whether they are at risk or not, we should know why it happens and whether the parent can make proper provision for them, so it is a really good idea. My concern is whether local authorities have the resourcing to make this thing work. As we all know, they are under immense pressure. However, it is about time that we had it, and it is a real move forward. The question is about their ability to deliver it.

Sir Jon Coles: I agree with all that. I am not sure quite how many Secretaries of State have thought it was a good idea to do this, but it is a lot of them, and they have all backed off it before now. I think it is good, important and brave that it is being done, because while I support the right of parents to home educate, and I think that is an important freedom in society, those of us who work in challenging areas can see that there is an overriding child protection and child safeguarding risk. That risk has grown, is growing and does need to be tackled.

Luke Sparkes: I echo that. I think the correlation of families who apply for elective home education, for example, and the vulnerability of those children is known. Whether it is in relation to attendance, unsupportive parenting or poor relationships with schools, challenging EHE is the right thing to do. However, as Sir Dan said, it will need significant additional resource if a school is to ensure that the child is supported to integrate into school in that way.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Could the two witnesses in the room introduce themselves as well?

Rebecca Leek: I am Rebecca Leek. I am currently the executive director of the Suffolk Primary Headteachers’ Association. There are 253 primary schools in Suffolk; around a third of them are local authority and two thirds are academies. I am currently also an interim headteacher in a local authority school. I have been a headteacher in an academy school and a CEO of a trust, and I have worked in inner-city London, urban Ipswich and rural Suffolk.

Leora Cruddas: I am Leora Cruddas; thank you very much for the invitation to give evidence to this Committee. I am the chief executive of the Confederation of School Trusts, which is the national organisation and sector body representing school trusts in England. Around 77% of all academy schools are in membership.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Thank you all for being here, and welcome. My first question is to Leora. We heard in the last session some concerns about taking away academy freedoms on pay, the curriculum and QTS. In some of the things that you have written, you have also raised concerns about two other things. The first is clause 43, which is a sort of general power to direct academies on a range of subjects. The policy summary notes to the Bill indicate that that will be used for some not particularly high-level things, such as school uniform and the like.

Do you have concerns that the general power is a bit untrammelled at the moment? Might it be sensible to table some amendments to that, so that we have some proportionality and do not have the Secretary of State being constantly sucked into intervening in schools and being pressed to do so by lots of different activists?

Leora Cruddas: The first thing I should say is that we really welcome the children’s wellbeing part of this Bill. There are a lot of good things in the Bill. We do have some concerns, as you say, about the schools part of the Bill, including, as you have heard from my colleagues, about pay and conditions. We welcome the Secretary of State’s clarification on that in her evidence to the Education Committee. We now need to work with the Government to make sure that the clarification around direction of travel is reflected in the way that the Bill is laid out. We do not think that the Secretary of State’s intention is properly reflected in the clause as it stands.

We do have concerns about the power to direct. We think it is too wide at the moment. We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits. Those limits should be around statutory duties on academy trusts, statutory guidance, the provisions in the funding agreement and charity law.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q That is very helpful and specific. Another thing you have raised concerns about is clause 50, which will give local authorities the ability to challenge a school’s PAN, even if it is just keeping it the same. I am sympathetic and understand what they are trying to do, with place planning and so on, but I have concerns about the local authority being both the regulator and the provider of other schools.

I worry about that, particularly in the context of falling school numbers in some areas, which will make these questions quite acute, because of the lack of any guidance or trammelling around it. For example, if there is an outstanding school and one that is struggling and may shut, where is the prioritisation? Where are the rules that say, “You must not treat academies unfairly compared with your local authority schools.”? Do you share any of those concerns? Do you think that there is scope to make amendments to improve the Bill?

Leora Cruddas: I start by saying that we really welcome the duty to collaborate at a local level. Trusts already work with local authorities; you may have heard that from my colleagues in the previous session.

We are concerned about some of the potential conflicts of interest. We say “potential” conflicts of interest in the context, as you point out, of falling primary school rolls. We would like to work with Government to set out a high-level, strategic decision-making framework that would mean that, in a local area, we know our children really well and we get our children into the right provision at the right time. That means working together strategically around pupil numbers, admissions, falling rolls and the sufficiency of need in a local area. Those conflicts of interest can be managed, but they would need to be set out in a very carefully framed decision-making framework so that they are managed properly.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q You said:

“We accept current arrangements are fractured: introducing the Schools Adjudicator worsens rather than improves this”.

What do you mean by that?

Leora Cruddas: We are not sure what the intention is behind the Government’s need to bring forward the clause in the Bill that would introduce greater powers for a schools adjudicator. That is one of the conflicts of interest that we would be alive to—if a local authority could bring forward a case to resist an academy trust’s pupil admission number, that would be a source of concern for us. That is why we need this high-level decision-making framework.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Thank you; that is very helpful. I have a question for Rebecca. In Schools Week you wrote:

“The schools bill working its way through Parliament…is not good legislation.”

You described it as “micromanagement” and “stifling”. You talked about some of your experiences as a headteacher. Can you expand a bit on the overall vision and direction of travel?

Rebecca Leek: Yes. I love being a headteacher—I was a headteacher yesterday, doing an assembly—but I have stood in both camps, and I have worked in very rapid turnaround situations with trusts.

--- Later in debate ---

On resuming—

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Thank you to our witnesses for their patience while we voted. I was asking you about what you wrote in Schools Week, Rebecca—you said that the Bill was “not good legislation” and described it as “micromanagement” and “stifling”, and you talked about your experience of using some of those school freedoms. I wonder whether you could say more about why you think that is the case and what you think the problem is with the Bill.

Rebecca Leek: One of the things about the school sector is that it is incredibly complex, so you have to have complex solutions for complex systems—if you know anything about systems thinking. To support such a complex system, there needs to be room for agility, so the reason why I was writing that—we will talk about my specific experience as well—is that I know quite a lot about systems theory and governance. I have written a book on governance, subsidiarity and why it is important to have flexibility and agility in localities. That comes from theoretical knowledge about how to create good systems that meet the needs of very complex things, which is what schools are. I cannot impress on the Committee enough how much diversity there is in the school system, and how much there is the need for agility.

As a headteacher on the frontline, my dominoes can topple within a term: I am in a small school; I lose two senior teachers; a safeguarding issue happens because something in the locality changes, and I suddenly have to find a pastoral lead, because there are more safeguarding issues; I am trying to get more engagement with some of the local services, which might be struggling because they are undercapacity; and there is a recruitment crisis with teachers, honestly, and also with headteachers—hence I am an interim headteacher, as we can never recruit headteachers, because it is such a hard job, given so much grit in the system. There is that fundamental need for agility.

I do therefore have a concern, and my colleagues share that. I speak to headteachers and CEOs all the time in Suffolk—I met a trust last week and spoke to a CEO of a trust with 12 primary schools on the phone yesterday. We went over some of the things in the Bill. We know that the agility that the academies legislation and other changes brought into the system have helped us to be very adaptive to certain circumstances. Anything that says, “Well, we are going to go slightly more with a one-size-fits-all model”—bearing in mind, too, that we do not know what that looks like, because this national curriculum has not even been written yet—is a worry. That is what I mean. If we suddenly all have to comply with something that is more uniform and have to check—“Oh no, we cannot do that”, “Yes, we can do that”, “No, we can’t do that”, “Yes, we can do that”—it will impede our ability to be agile around our school communities and our job.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q That is very helpful. You have run both types of school and have said that when you were running local authority-run schools, you were often told, “No, we cannot do that”, even when the action would solve a problem and benefit our pupils, and even though you can see the academy down the road doing exactly that. What sort of freedoms are the most valuable? What have you found with those academy freedoms that the Bill is eroding?

Rebecca Leek: There are a few specific things, and some other things. I had to step in as an interim headteacher in Ipswich just prior to covid. I did not have an early years lead and we had Ofsted six weeks in: we got RI—with good for leadership and management, thank you very much—but I still did not have an early years teacher. I needed to solve that incredibly quickly, so I liaised with three different agencies and made contact with various different people. There was someone who was not a qualified teacher, but who had been running an outstanding nursery. She had decided to stop running it, because of her work-life balance, and she thought she might want to work in a school. I took her on, and although she was not qualified, she was really excellent. I was able to do that because it was an academy school, and it was not an issue. In a maintained school, there is a specific need for a qualified teacher to teach in early years, so I would not have been able to take her on.

That is just one example. Another example is that maintained schools, I think under the 2002 legislation, must have a full-time headteacher—they must have a headteacher at all times. In a small rural school, that is financially a real burden, and it is one of the reasons why I am not a permanent headteacher. Last year, I was an interim headteacher. I came to an agreement with those at the local authority that I would do it on four days a week, and they kind of accepted that—it was a bit of a fudge, because it is actually non-compliant. They asked, “Will you carry on?”, and I said, “No, because I am not going to be full-time.” At the moment, I am three days a week and, again, it is okay because I am interim—academies can have great flexibility around leadership arrangements.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q That is a potential problem for a small rural school.

Rebecca Leek: It is a real problem for small rural schools particularly. They function really well in little pockets of two or three schools together, with maybe one executive head dealing with some of the headaches—because there are headaches—and with some things that are more systematic across the three schools. Yes, definitely.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q I have a quick one for Leora on academies’ freedom with the curriculum. Some trusts not far from my constituency have used those freedoms quite strongly. They have deliberately focused on the core academics. In some cases, they do not necessarily even have the facilities to provide the national curriculum—if they are to be made to do that immediately—because they have focused on getting the core academic stuff for kids in situations of deprivation. Are you aware of others? There are definitely schools and trusts out there that are using those freedoms around the national curriculum, are there not?

Leora Cruddas: There definitely are trusts that have used their freedoms around the national curriculum. I would say it is not unreasonable for a state to want a high-level national curriculum framework—that is not an unreasonable position—

[Neil O’Brien]

Q But in adjusting to that, some schools might face severe adjustments or even need new capital, facilities and stuff—

Leora Cruddas: That is exactly right. Under this legislation, we could end up with a high-level national curriculum framework—once again, as I said on pay and conditions, with a floor but no ceiling. That would protect the right of schools and trusts, all schools and trusts, to innovate, to be agile, to respond to local context, and to be centres of curriculum excellence—you heard Sir Jon Coles talk about his curriculum. We want to retain that notion of curriculum flexibility, curriculum freedoms.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Would an amendment to that effect be helpful to preserve those freedoms?

Leora Cruddas: It would be very helpful to have clarity on that position. Obviously, we have not had the curriculum and assessment review report yet. I have absolute confidence that Professor Francis will be eminently sensible. She is a very serious person, and will follow the evidence; but I think we need to be careful that we are not tying ourselves into high levels of prescription in all parts of the Bill, including the national curriculum.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q On pay and conditions, you might think that the idea of a floor, not a ceiling, is a decent direction of travel, but to be clear, that is not where the Bill is now and it needs to change. That is my position.

Leora Cruddas: Again, I would cite the Secretary of State’s evidence to the Select Committee, where she made clear that it is also her expectation around curriculum to have that floor and to be able to innovate and have flexibility above that floor.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q What I am getting at is that we need to change the Bill as it is currently drafted by officials, in order to achieve those things.

Leora Cruddas: Yes, I would say that was true.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q I want to ask a question about admissions initially, which can go to any of you. Do you think it is important for schools to at least co-operate with local authorities on school admissions and place planning, in your experience?

Rebecca Leek: I can only tell you, from my experience, that there is a lot of collaboration where I work. We have Suffolk Education Partnership, which is made up of local authority representatives, associations, CEOs and headteachers. Admissions are not really my area, in this Bill, but my experience is that there is collaboration. We are always looking to place children and make sure that they have somewhere if they are permanently excluded. There is real commitment in the sector to that, from my experience where I work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Q David, welcome and thank you for joining us.

I want to ask you first about the national curriculum and its imposition on all academy schools. We have heard about the use of that flexibility as a form of freedom—where schools are being turned around, they might do something different for a while and diverge from the national curriculum. But I know there are also trusts and school leaders who use it on a longer-term basis—they make a conscious choice to focus on, for example, the core academics, often in situations of great difficulty, in order to secure what they regard as the most important, core things for their students that will enable the maximum number of choices later on.

Obviously you have been a maths teacher—you have been in that core discipline—and I wondered whether, in an education system where parents have school choice and can choose different things that are right for their child, you thought it was legitimate for people to have different models and to have that flexibility, and whether it was useful to have that freedom from the national curriculum.

David Thomas: We need to strike a careful balance. It is absolutely a central purpose of education to make sure that all children going out into society have some shared knowledge in common and can interact as a society and function in that way. That is very important. It is also important that people running schools get to look at their children, look at the challenges they are facing and have bold and ambitious visions for what they want those children to go on and do and what that community wants for itself, and that they can be flexible and go on and achieve that. That is why you need a balance of different things.

At the moment we have statutory assessments that apply to all schools, whether an academy or a maintained school. We have Ofsted making sure that you teach a curriculum that is at least as broad and balanced as the national curriculum, so that you cannot go narrow. But you need to be ambitious for your children, and my understanding from Sir Martyn’s evidence earlier was that that system appears to be working for children.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Right, so you do not think that there is a particular problem out there that needs to be solved.

David Thomas: No, there is not one that I can see.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Can I ask you about the very general powers in clause 43 that give the Secretary of State the ability to intervene on a whole range of subjects? The explanatory notes to the Bill talk about using that to intervene on relatively micro things like school uniform. Do you think that untrammelled power is desirable, or would it be more sensible to amend that to have it slightly more focused, so that the Secretary of State does not get dragged into attempting to micromanage schools from the centre?

David Thomas: Clause 43, as drafted, goes beyond the explanatory notes and what Ministers have stated their intention to be. If the intention of the clause is to allow Ministers to intervene where an academy trust is breaching a power, but to do that in a way that is short of termination, that is a very sensible thing to want to do and the Government should absolutely be able to do that. If the purpose is, as it says in the explanatory notes, to issue a direction to academy trusts to comply with their duty, that feels like a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to do. The Bill, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the ability to

“give the proprietor such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate”.

I do not think it is appropriate for a Secretary of State to give an operational action plan to a school, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for a Secretary of State to tell a school that it needs to follow its duty. I think there is just a mismatch between the stated intention and the drafting, and I would correct that mismatch.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q So an amendment to bring those two things back into line—the stated intent and the actual Bill—would be sensible.

David Thomas: Yes.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q I want to ask you about a few other issues, including pay and QTS. As a headteacher, you have used academy freedoms, and you have also worked in a global shortage subject, mathematics. I do not know what you think of the Bill more generally and whether there are things beyond what we have talked about already that you would amend, or what you think of the general tenor of the Bill—trying to take away academy freedoms and make things more similar. What do you think of the Bill’s direction of travel and what would you amend, if you were able to control it yourself?

David Thomas: On pay and conditions, I agree with the Secretary of State’s stated intention to spread the freedom to innovate, and to make teaching a more attractive profession, to all schools. I think we are only scratching the surface as a profession of what it means to offer flexible working within education. I do not think anyone has really mastered that, and it is a really big challenge. We need to be allowing the maximum freedom for people to be able to innovate. Of course, we have just done an experiment in what happens if you tell lots and lots of schools that they do not need to follow the statutory teachers’ pay and conditions: people only ever exceed it and offer things that are more attractive, because you want the very best teachers in your school.

I think it is essential that we have that freedom, and it is not enough for a Government to say that their intention is to grant that in a future statutory teachers’ pay and conditions document. It needs to be there in legislation for trusts to know that will be the case, which is really important for both pay and conditions. If you want to nail flexibility and offer that to teachers, you need to be able to trade off around conditions to make something more flexible. I think that is really important, and I agree with the Government’s intention, but I do not think that the Bill, as drafted, achieves that at the moment.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q Do you think it would be more attractive to extend those freedoms over both pay and conditions to local authority schools?

David Thomas: I think it would absolutely work, as CST has suggested, to say that statutory teachers’ pay and conditions should be an advisory thing that schools and trusts need to have due regard of, and to continue with something like the School Teachers Review Body. As it is at the moment, they are effectively setting a default starting position from which people can innovate out if they want to, rather than capping what people are able to do.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q There are lots of other big challenges in the sector at the moment: attendance, discipline and lots of other things. Is there anything else that you would like to either amend in the Bill or add to it?

David Thomas: I have concerns about limiting the number of people with unqualified teacher status who are not working towards qualified teacher status.

[Neil O’Brien]

Q What is the problem?

David Thomas: I have worked with some fantastic people—generally late-career people in shortage subjects who want to go and give back in the last five to 10 years of their career—who would not go through some of the bureaucracy associated with getting qualified teacher status but are absolutely fantastic and have brought wonderful things to a school and to a sector. I have seen them change children’s lives. We know we have a flow of 600 people a year coming into the sector like that. If those were 600 maths teachers and you were to lose that, that would be 100,000 fewer children with a maths teacher. None of us knows what we would actually lose, but that is a risk that, in the current system, where we are so short of teachers, I would choose not to take.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q You have previously written about the value of ensuring that teachers can do some of their work from home, specifically marking and planning, so do you support the Government’s direction of travel in ensuring that greater flexibility and flexible working is available to more teachers and more schools?

David Thomas: Yes. I find it very odd how little flexibility lots of teachers are given. As a headteacher I remember teachers asking me questions such as, “Am I allowed to leave site to do my marking?” and I thought, “Why are you asking me this? You are an adult”. I absolutely agree with that direction of travel, but I do not see that reflected in the wording of the Bill, so I think there is an exercise to be done to make sure that that is reflected in the Bill. Otherwise, the risk is that it does not become the actual direction of travel.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Thank you very much for coming. Apologies; we are a little bit later starting than we had anticipated because of the delay for voting earlier. Could you introduce yourself?

Kate Anstey: I am Kate Anstey, the head of education policy at Child Poverty Action Group.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Good afternoon. Thank you for bearing with us while we voted. During the course of the day we have been discussing free school meals in secondary schools. It is obviously desirable to give lots of people free breakfasts, but there has been a bit of a debate about how to prioritise in a situation of inevitably scarce resources. We heard from Mark Russell that, if given the choice, rather than go for a universal obligation in primary schools, he would have the roll-out of breakfast clubs in more secondary schools targeted at schools with high levels of deprivation. Should we focus first on areas of deprivation and secondary schools with deprivation? Obviously, we would like to have infinite money. What do you think of his argument?

Kate Anstey: We certainly welcome the introduction of free breakfast clubs in the Bill. We speak to children and families in schools extensively and carry out extensive analysis. We know that where breakfast clubs are provided freely, they make a huge difference to low-income families —they make a big difference to lots of children, but to lower-income families disproportionately. The fact that provision is universal is very important; we know that removes a lot of barriers for parents. Where there is any kind of targeted approach, there are issues around stigma and families are less likely to use provision.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Do you mean universal within the school—everyone has access to it?

Kate Anstey: Yes, exactly. Take-up of breakfast clubs varies, but the fact that it is universally available is very important.

I would say that it feels like secondary school pupils need more attention. They are being missed in the Bill. More could be done to support those families. There is also the issue in primary schools of how much support breakfast clubs can provide in terms of childcare, which is much more needed at primary level, but secondary school pupils certainly need support. They need support to get to school and they need food available as well.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q That is a very interesting point. Do you have a sense yet of the future funding arrangements for breakfast clubs in secondary schools and for HAF—holiday activities and food? What is the current status of those, as you understand it?

Kate Anstey: My understanding is that the HAF funding for holiday programmes has been committed to until 2025—some time this year. There are concerns about what will happen next with holiday programmes. In terms of funding for breakfast clubs more generally, there has been commitment to carry on funding the national school breakfast programme until 2026. That supports some secondary schools that meet the criteria. That is welcome, but one of our concerns with the work going on around breakfast clubs is funding and commitment to funding. We know that there is funding until 2026.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q But there is no certainty after that.

Kate Anstey: Yes, there is no certainty after that. The costs cannot land on families—we know that that will be a major barrier—but they also cannot land on schools, which need to know that they can continue that provision.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q There are charities, voluntary groups and various people out there funding free breakfasts, and there are paid-for free breakfasts at the moment, so the interaction of the Government-funded entitlement for the 30 minutes and those two other things will be quite complicated. Do you have any thoughts about anything that we need to do in the Bill to make that work well and to avoid the problems you have described? More generally, do you have thoughts, based on the experience of the groups that you speak to, about what it really costs to deliver this well? What is the unit cost of doing it properly? I am interested in both of those things.

Kate Anstey: Around 75% of schools have some form of breakfast provision already, but, as you say—

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Is that primary?

Kate Anstey: There is a higher proportion in primary, but that 75% is across all. Sorry—I have forgotten your question.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q I was trying to get at what the unit costs look like and how you manage the interaction of providing a new, free entitlement to 30 minutes together with paid-for sessions that offer longer and existing, charitably funded things. Is there anything we need to do in the Bill to ensure that that does not get tangled up?

Kate Anstey: A large proportion are already running breakfast clubs. It is a real mixture in terms of how that is funded, whether it is through schemes or other things. In primary schools, it is much more likely that parents are paying in some form for that. Again, it is a mixed picture. There is a postcode lottery for families. If you are in a more affluent area, you are more likely to have breakfast club provision available to you, and you are more likely to be supported by family.

In what the Bill is trying to do on breakfast clubs, we really welcome the fact that it is bringing consistency and ensuring that there is access for all families. In the early adopter phase, it would be good to understand what schools are doing already and how this can work, but I think that standardised limit that includes both time and food for families should be standardised for everybody. There might be other things that go around that.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q On unit costs, I saw in the Government document that there was an initial grant—a lump sum—but the unit cost was about 65p per session per child. I know that there was the lump sum as well, but that struck me as being not a huge amount. I do not know what it really costs to deliver these things in practice in a lot of other places.

Kate Anstey: It is probably worth speaking to organisations; I am sure that Magic Breakfast will be able to speak more to that. There are certainly economies of scale that can help you bring down costs, but again, our area of expertise is free school meals, and schools are struggling with the funding that they have for free school meals. I would imagine that 65p might be a struggle for schools—I do not know. You would have to have conversations with some of the providers about that.

[Stephen Morgan]

Q Kate, it is good to see you again. Thank you for giving evidence to the Committee. I have a specific question around school uniform provisions in the Bill. Do you think that the provisions in the Bill on school uniform items for primary schools will support families and children with the cost of living?

Kate Anstey: We were very pleased to see Government taking action on reducing the cost of the school day, and uniforms are a huge pressure for families. We have done some research looking at the cost of uniforms for families. If you are a primary-aged family, the cost is £350 minimum, and it goes up to about £450 for secondary-aged families. That is for one child, of course, so that multiplies if you have more children. Part of that includes the fact that schools sometimes have excessive lists of compulsory branded items, so we were very pleased to see that acknowledgment in the Bill and the recognition that that needs to be limited. We think that that will make some difference to families.

The Bill could have gone further. I am not sure why the difference has been made between secondary and primary on the minimum. I think that those should be the same; there should not be a discrepancy there. I encourage Government to consider going further on this and bringing down the branded items as much as possible, because that is one of the things that place pressure on families.

In addition, the Bill could go further to support families with the cost of uniforms. In every other UK nation, families get grants and support with school costs. England is the only one that is lagging behind in that area, so we would like the idea of lower-income families getting more support with the cost to be looked at. This is two-pronged: schools need to do more, but families really do need help to meet some of those costs as well.

One more thing on uniform that comes up a lot in our research with children and young people is that children are being isolated or sent home from school because they do not meet requirements around uniform. DFE data showed that 18% of children in hardship were sent home for not meeting uniform requirements. I find that kind of shocking when we have an attendance crisis. Something needs to be done around the guidance for behaviour in schools to ensure that children are not sanctioned for poverty-related issues or issues relating to uniform. Those are areas where I think that the Bill could have gone further, but we certainly think restricting branded items is a good thing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I make this point in the context of the Labour peer who did disclose her party allegiance.

[Neil O'Brien]

And others.

[The Chair]

Order. It is not acceptable to have this backwards and forwards across the Committee. Please ask a question of the witness.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Q We now move on to the Ministers on the Bill. We all know who you are, but can you give us your formal titles?

The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell): I am Catherine McKinnell, the Minister for School Standards.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan): I am Stephen Morgan, the Minister for Early Education.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q We have heard from four or five different school leaders today alone that the Bill needs to be changed to deliver what the Government are committed to rhetorically, not just on pay and conditions, but on the national curriculum. They say that “It is nice that this is your intention” and “It is nice that this is what you say”, but four or five distinguished school leaders have said, specifically, over the course of the day, that the Bill needs to be amended. Will the Ministers work with those school leaders now to produce those amendments?

Catherine McKinnell: I want to say first that the Government’s mission through the Bill—

[Neil O'Brien]

Could you answer the question?

Catherine McKinnell: I will answer the question.

[Vicky Foxcroft (Lewisham North) (Lab)]

We are supposed to be polite to each other.

[Neil O'Brien]

We have limited time. Can you please just answer the question. I have incredibly limited time.

[The Chair]

Order. We have had a question, and the Minister is going to answer it.

Catherine McKinnell: The Government’s mission through the Bill is to deliver on the ambition of giving every child a national core of high-quality education, while allowing schools more flexibility and to innovate beyond it. We know that excellence and innovation can be found in all school types, so our priority is to create a school system that is rooted in collaboration and partnership so that we can spread that best practice throughout our very diverse system, which was commented on in the evidence we heard today. That is just the schools part; there is obviously a whole other section on children and safeguarding, and making sure we bring forward the landmark reforms that we need to see in child safeguarding.

In direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question, the factor that makes the biggest difference to a young person’s education in schools and colleges is high-quality teaching, but there are severe shortages of qualified teachers across the country. We know that they are integral to driving high and rising standards, and they need to have an attractive pay and conditions framework. That is essential to both recruiting and retaining teachers who are qualified in every classroom.

We know academies have made transformational change, and we want them to continue driving those high and rising standards for all pupils, but especially disadvantaged pupils. That is why, as the Secretary of State set out, we want to create a floor with no ceiling, enabling healthy competition and innovation beyond that core framework to improve all schools. That is what we intend to deliver. We have heard the feedback from the sector. I have listened very carefully to the evidence that has been given today.

What this means for our ambition for teachers pay and conditions is that it should be clearer. In the same way that we have tabled other amendments to the Bill to make sure the legislation delivers our objectives, we are also intending to table an amendment to the clause covering teachers’ pay and conditions. That is entirely in line with the Government’s approach to providing clarification on the intention of legislation while we go through Committee stage.

The amendment will do two things. First, it will set a floor on pay that requires all state schools to follow minimum pay bands set out in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. Secondly, it will require academies to have due regard to the rest of the terms and conditions in the school teacher’s pay and conditions document. In doing so, we make it clear that we will deliver on our commitment to create a floor with no ceiling, so that good practice and innovation can continue to spread and be used by all state schools to recruit and retain the very best teachers that we need for our children.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q So it is still your intention to make all academies comply with the school teachers’ pay and condition document, despite what Sir Jon Coles talked about regarding the problems that that would create?

Catherine McKinnell: As I said, the amendment will require all state schools to follow the minimum pay bands set out in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document, and then it will require academies to have due regard to the rest of the terms and conditions in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. This is so that we can deliver that core offer to all state schools, but without a ceiling.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Is the Minister prepared to commit to work with school leaders, both the ones here today and others, to generate that amendment so that they are all satisfied with where we end up?

Catherine McKinnell: We are in close consultation with all of the stakeholders that we have been collaborating with to make sure we create the best framework of legislation that will deliver opportunity for all children, and we will continue to do so.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q Is the only amendment that we will be seeing from the Government on some of the issues we talked about today on pay, with nothing on clause 43, QTS or the national curriculum? If the answer is yes, and you are not planning an amendment on those, that is fine. I just wondered if the Minister had been persuaded by any of the things discussed, particularly around clause 43 and whether it is a bit too untrammelled in its current form and did not necessarily reflect the intent as put down in the notes?

Catherine McKinnell: I can respond to the hon. Gentleman on the new power in clause 43 that he has raised a number of times today. It will provide the Secretary of State with a more proportionate and flexible remedy, where it is really important to address quite a narrow or specific breach regarding unreasonable behaviour within an academy trust. I can give you an example as to why this is necessary: at the moment existing intervention powers require the Department for Education to use a termination warning notice and subsequently a termination notice. That is not always necessary or appropriate when dealing with an isolated breach of a legal duty.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q I understand the sense of that.

Catherine McKinnell: We need a proportionate response and that needs to be framed—

[Neil O'Brien]

Q On that front we are in agreement. My question is whether the Minister would be prepared to limit that to schools’ actual duties, rather than just anything that the Secretary of State sees fit to direct them to do. That is the worry. It is not an “in principle” objection to it. It is a problem that the power is so untrammelled. Would she consider listening to the point that was made on that?

Catherine McKinnell: Is the hon. Gentleman talking about a point that he has made on that or a point that—

[Neil O'Brien]

Q It was a point that David made in his evidence on it. I thought he made a good point.

Catherine McKinnell: Obviously, we will listen to legitimate concerns on that. At the moment our view is that it is a much more proportionate way of dealing with a breach by an academy of a legal requirement within the legislation, so that we can avoid disruption to children where there is another way of dealing with it.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q One last point. Zooming back a bit, a few different witnesses called for a vision of where the system is going, and they intuited what the Government’s vision was from the contents of the Bill. I thought that was very interesting. I just wondered what Ministers’ view was of what had gone wrong in Wales. Obviously in Wales a lot of the different academy freedoms were never taken up, academies were not put in place and league tables were abolished. It was effectively a natural experiment going the opposite direction to England. The IFS report “Major challenges for education in Wales” is incredibly damning about what has happened there as a result. In terms of the Government’s overall theory and the vision they are trying to enact in the Bill, I am curious about why Ministers think things have gone so wrong in Wales. Why have things gone so backward? Why is the IFS report so damning?

Catherine McKinnell: I am conscious that other Members of the Committee might want to actually ask about the legislation, but I am happy to set out our overarching vision.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ian Sollom]

Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome the new requirement on local authorities to offer family group decision making, which gives those who care for children, including family members, the opportunity to be involved in putting together that plan for their welfare. The provision strengthens the right to hear the child’s voice, which as we heard in the evidence session is important.

We have a few concerns. As the provision is currently laid out, it might be a little ambiguous. There are lots of different models of family group decision making around, so we would like clarification from the Minister about the principles and standards that are set out in regard to what it actually looks like in practice. Cases where there is domestic violence or coercive control can be hard to identify, so we would like guidance on the principles around that.

We would also like to encourage local authorities to probe into what family group decision making should look like and who should be involved. One example that came to us from the Family Rights Group was of Azariah Hope, who was a care-experienced young parent very frustrated about how she was not offered a family group conference because the local authority presumed that she did not have a family or friend network to draw on.

Amendment 36 strengthens the right for the child to be involved, but still gives the local authority the power to decide on the appropriateness of who should be involved. We would like to hear more from the Minister about what those principles and standards should be for taking family group decision making forward.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As this is the first amendment on the first day of our line-by-line consideration, I will briefly say that although the Opposition have lots of serious questions about the second part of the Bill, there is much in part 1 of the Bill that we completely support.

In fact, a lot of the Bill builds on work that the last Government were doing. To quote the great 1980s philosopher Belinda Carlisle, we may find that

“We dream the same thing

We want the same thing”.

It may not always seem like that, because we are going to ask some questions, but they are all about improving the Bill. A lot of them are not our questions, but ones put to us by passionate experts and those who work with people in these difficult situations.

The relevant policy document sets out why it is so important to get this clause right. It highlights the number of serious case incidents, which was 405 last year, and the number of child deaths, which was 205—every single one a terrible tragedy. Around half of those deaths were of very young children, often under 2; they are physically the most vulnerable children, because they cannot get away.

Our amendment 18 seeks to make clause 1 work in practice. It reflects some, but not all, of the concerns that we heard in oral evidence on Tuesday from Jacky Tiotto, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The clause states:

“Before a local authority in England makes an application for an order…the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting”.

In general, those meetings are a good thing, and we all support them—the last Government supported them; the new Government support them. They are already in statutory guidance.

However, we have two or three nagging worries about what will happen when, as it were, we mandate a good thing. The first is about pace. As I said in the oral evidence session, I worry that once family group decision making becomes a legal process and right, people will use the courts to slow down decision making, and that local authorities will sometimes worry about fulfilling this new requirement—although the meetings are generally a good thing—when their absolute priority should be getting a child away from a dangerous family quickly.

A long time ago, when I used to work with people who were street homeless, I met a woman who was a very heavy heroin user and a prostitute. She was about to have—[Interruption.]

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil O’Brien]

I will give way; I have finally managed to get my train of thought in order again.

[Lizzi Collinge]

How common does the hon. Gentleman think the situation that he describes is across our constituencies? Does he accept our understanding of that situation? We see it ourselves in our constituencies and in our inboxes.

[Neil O’Brien]

I thank the hon. Member for the intervention. A lot of us will have seen such situations where there is not a minute to lose. To complete my sentence, the woman was about to have—I think—her third or fourth child. This is not to criticise her, but a child would not have been safe with her for a single minute. The priority has to be getting children away from people who are dangerous to them.

I worry about pace, and our amendment 18 makes the importance of pace clear. It would insert:

“Nothing in this section permits an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings in section 14(2)(ii) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”

I was struck by what the head of CAFCASS told us on Tuesday. She said that the Bill “probably could move” the requirement for the family group decision-making meeting

“down to the point at which there are formal child protection procedures starting so that the family can get to know what the concerns are, work with the child protection plan for longer, understand what the concerns are and demonstrate whether the protection can happen.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 31, Q68.]

This is the bit of her evidence—she knows a lot more about this than I do—that struck me:

“if the Bill were to stay as drafted at the edge of care, I think there are risks for very young children, and babies in particular. The meetings will be difficult to set up. People will not turn up. They will be rescheduled”.––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 31, Q68.]

She went on:

“For very young children when you are concerned, if they are still with the parents, which is sometimes the case, or even with a foster carer, you want permanent decisions quickly. That does not negate the need for the family to be involved. You can have it much earlier because you have been worried for a while at that point.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 31, Q70.]

Our amendment does not encompass all those concerns, but it does seek to ensure that this very sensible provision in clause 1 does not slow down measures to keep children safe.

Given that there we were told a few other things by CAFCASS, I should also be clear about what our amendment does not do. It does not address my concerns about people and families—indeed, extended families—using the move to primary legislation to bring about legal action, such as a judicial review, against the decisions of local authorities, or using lawfare or the threat of legal action against local authorities, perhaps to force their way into a room when most of the social workers and other people involved would much rather they were not there because they are inappropriate people. Protecting against that risk is legally much more complicated, which is why the Government have not tabled an amendment on that point.

Ministers may say that the legal worries are less than I am supposing, but will they agree to look at this issue? The last thing we want, once this goes from being guidance to being statute, is people saying, “I’ve got a right to this meeting. You didn’t have me in the meeting. I am going to challenge this decision,” and all that sort of stuff. Hopefully, there is no risk, but I would love to see Ministers consider that point.

Nor does our amendment address moving meetings earlier in the process. As drafted, the clause encourages LAs to put pretty much all their cases to a meeting at the pre-proceeding stage—it has to be done before it goes to court—but lots of the people we heard evidence from think it would be desirable to have the meetings earlier, before the case enters the much less consensual pre-court process. By the time the case gets to the pre-proceedings stage, it is normally pretty clear that it will be hard to reach an amicable solution.

As I said, these questions do not come from us, but from people who know more about the issues than I do. I would like Ministers to respond to the points made by various experts and official groups. The head of CAFCASS said on Tuesday that we should move the point at which the Bill applies to when a section 7 report is ordered. I was really struck by her saying that, because it would be quite a big change to the Bill. She was very specific, however, and she knows a lot about the issue. She said:

“One suggestion I would like to make on CAFCASS’s behalf is that family group decision making should be offered to families where the court has ordered a section 7 report—a welfare report that, if ordered to do so, the local authority has to produce for the court in respect of what it advises about where children should live and who they should spend time with. I think the opportunity for a family group decision-making meeting for those families is important.”––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 32, Q72.]

That is a big proposal, but it comes from someone with huge experience, who clearly has some real concerns. Will Ministers agree to take that away and consider it further as we make progress in Committee and in the Lords?

The head of CAFCASS made a second big proposal on Tuesday:

“The Bill tends to focus on those who are in public law proceedings. Two thirds of the children we work with are in private law proceedings, where there are family disputes about who children spend their time with and where they live. Very often, those children are in families where conflict is very intense. There are risks to them; there is domestic abuse. The Bill is silent on children in private law proceedings, and I think there is an opportunity for that to be different.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 32, Q72.]

My second question to the Ministers is: have the Government reflected on that suggestion, and do they have any plans to respond? They might not be able to give us a full and final answer today, but what is their basic reaction to that?

Another expert made some significant and specific suggestions about the clause. Will the Government respond to concerns put forward in the written evidence from the Family Rights Group, a charity that helped to introduce family conferences, which were used in New Zealand, to the UK in the 1990s? It said:

“we are concerned that the family group decision making offer in the Bill is too ambiguous and state-led in the way it is framed, with the state determining how, who attends and even if it happens. Without strengthening the provisions, we fear in practice it will not deliver the Bill’s ambition, to ensure fair and effective opportunity across England for children and families to get the support they need to stay safely together.”

Essentially, it is worried that the form will be followed but the spirit will be lost. It goes on:

“We are already seeing evidence of local authorities claiming to use such approaches, including reference to ‘family-led decision making’ to describe meetings which are led by professionals and where family involvement is minimal. Without clear definition of terms, and a set of principles and standards for practice, it is likely that in many authorities, such meetings will be professionally-led, with the child and family engagement peripheral…If the legislation does not specify what is expected, we are also concerned approaches unsupported by evidence will proliferate.”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

The debate on clause 1 stand part is included in this group.

[Neil O'Brien]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. I will include it here—I just wanted to double-check.

Although I have asked lots of questions about it, we totally agree with the spirit of the clause. In fact, in February 2023, the last Conservative Government published a strategy and consultation on reforming children’s social care called “Stable Homes, Built on Love”. That was partly a response to reports published in 2022, including the final report of the independent review of children’s social care, which was very ably put together by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). The 2023 strategy said that, over the following two years, the Government would invest £200 million,

“laying the foundations for whole system reform and setting national direction for change.”

After two years, the Government would refresh the strategy, scale up the approaches and bring forward new legislation, and in a sense that is what is happening now. This Government are doing some of the things that we had hoped to do when we were in government.

We are obviously not against new legislation; in fact, as part of the strategy, we provided £45 million to launch the Families First for Children pathfinder in 12 local areas for the following two years. That was going to test some of the measures in the Bill, such as more multi-agency working and early, non-stigmatising help and group decision making. We set up those pilots partly because of one of the measures in clause 1.

Those pilots started in July 2023 and, frustratingly, the results are supposed to be out in the next couple of months. Because of the way that things happen in this place, we are in the slightly frustrating position of having done a proper experiment—we have tested the concepts in clause 1 in the pilot—as we always say we want to do as politicians, but we do not get to hear the results, which are potentially just weeks away.

Have Ministers had sight of early findings from those pilots? Would they be prepared to make them available to Members of this House and of the other place, either in written form or via access to those who have been doing the work of pulling the findings together? It is very frustrating: there is a good piece of evidence, on which a lot of time and money has been spent, and yet, at the point at which we are legislating, we do not quite have access to it. It is weeks away. I hope that Ministers will find a way to share the findings with Members of both Houses.

As I alluded to, I read the Foundations report. Based on a randomised controlled trial, it states:

“We estimate that if family group conferences were to be rolled out across England, 2,293 fewer children would go into care in a 12-month period”.

That would be about a 7% drop, so that is a very large effect. If the RCT is right and it is not just a pilot effect, the effect would be big. We have that estimate from an external group, but I would like to know what the Government think the clause will do to the number of people in care.

On the one hand, that is very encouraging. Having 7% fewer children safely flowing into care every year would be a glorious and fantastic outcome, which is why both sides are interested in the model. On the other hand, such a big change would bring with it some downsides and risks, as is inevitable when we are talking about so many children. The Foundations report concludes that

“There is a need to undertake further research”.

I therefore have another question for the Minister: what gold standard randomised controlled trial work have the Government planned to understand the impacts of the change if it is rolled out as we expect?

I am speaking specifically of the potential negative impacts, which will be smaller in number and hard to look at. We might think, “Wonderful, we have 7% fewer children flowing into care every year. That is great,” but what happens to the children who do not end up in care but have a bad experience in another way? We all hope that will be a much smaller number, but when there is a big upside, there will probably be downsides as well. It is important to have a piece of research in train to try to measure those downsides and check whether the good consequences that we hope for also come with negative consequences. Unless we have the research that Foundations has called for, we will not find that out.

We do not disagree on the attractiveness of family group decision making in principle, but we need to make it work and to minimise the risks. Our amendment is one way to do part of that. We need to make sure that we are seizing all the opportunities of this legislative moment; they do not come around too often, as the Minister pointed out the other day. As the Bill goes through, we need to get a lot more information about that consequential reform. That will come partly from the Government’s impact assessment, when it is published, and partly from the Government providing the answers to some of our questions.

I have given lots of examples, and I hope that Ministers will think very carefully about some of the suggestions that we are getting from the serious experts who have been doing this for a long time. They are totally independent—they just want the right thing for kids and to ensure that we get the upsides of this change, which we all support in principle, while minimising the downsides.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 36, 37 and 18. It has been a number of years since I was regularly involved in care proceedings as a barrister, but I did so for the best part of a decade. I and a number of my former colleagues hugely welcome this requirement for family group decision making to ensure that it can consistently take place and that all kinship options are considered before there is an application to remove a child from their family and place them in care. I anticipate that the clause will mean fewer cases where lawyers have to get involved and where families are subject to care proceedings.

I am concerned about amendments 36 and 37, however, which would make the Bill more directive about children being present at family group decision making. The wishes and feelings of the child need, of course, to be considered at that meeting and the voice of the child should, of course, always be heard, but that is different from them being present at the meeting. It is really important that the discussion at that meeting is frank and meaningful—often, in that meeting, family members will be finding out, and coming to understand, the risks posed to a child. The appropriate way for a child to be told about their safety or an issue that parents need to tackle is likely to be very different, and more tailored, from what is appropriate for the adults in the room.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I do think I have responded to the hon. Lady’s specific request, and explained why we are mandating and putting on to a statutory footing the requirement to offer family group decision making at this crucial point before care proceedings. We obviously encourage local authorities throughout their work with children in these circumstances to take a family-first approach and to offer family conferencing. Indeed, family group decision making can be used at any stage of a child’s journey through their relationship with the local authority. However, our decision to mandate it at this crucial point is very much based on the evidence that this reduces the number of children who end up going into care proceedings, and indeed into care.

A lot of issues were raised and I will do my very best to cover them. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raised private law proceedings. The Ministry of Justice offers a voucher scheme to provide a contribution of up to £500 towards the mediation costs for eligible cases, supporting people in resolving their family law disputes outside of court. Similarly to family group decision making, family mediation is a process that uses trained, independent mediators and helps families to sort arrangements out. I take on board the concerns he has raised that all children should be able to benefit from family group decision making where possible. On the impact assessment, as we said in the second evidence session on Tuesday, the Regulatory Policy Committee is considering the Bill’s impact assessments and we will publish them shortly and as soon as possible.

[Neil O'Brien]

I know that the Minister is trying to get us the impact assessments and is completely sincere about that. Will she undertake to get them while we are still in Committee?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I believe I can, but I will check and report back in this afternoon’s sitting. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s request.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I invited the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment and he said that he wished to press it, so that is why we had a Division.

As a number of people in this Committee are on a learning curve, I will just say that, if the people who tabled the other two amendments in this grouping wish to put them to the vote, that request needs to be put to the Chair now. They can then be moved formally and we can then have a Division on them. If that is not done now, those amendments will not have been moved and they will just fall. Does anybody else wish to move any of the amendments in this group?

[Neil O'Brien]

Yes, Sir Christopher.

Amendment proposed: 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(10) Nothing in this section permits an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings in section 14(2)(ii) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”—(Neil O'Brien.)

This amendment clarifies that nothing in this section should imply an extension to the statutory 26-week limit for care proceedings.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

By strengthening the role of education in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, clause 2 recognises the crucial role that education and childcare play in keeping children safe. It places a duty on the local authority, police and health services, as safeguarding partners, to automatically include all education settings in their arrangements, and to work together to identify and respond to the needs of children in this area.

The clause includes the breadth of education settings, such as early years, academies, alternative provision and further education. This will ensure improved communication between a safeguarding partnership and education, better information sharing and understanding of child protection thresholds, and more opportunities to influence key decisions about how safeguarding is carried out in the local area.

Multiple national reviews have found that although some arrangements have worked hard to bring schools to the table, in too many places the contribution and voice of education are missing. Education and childcare settings should have a seat around the table in decision making about safeguarding, so we are mandating consistent and effective join-up between local authority, police and health services, and schools and other education and childcare settings and providers. We know that many education and childcare settings are well involved in their local safeguarding arrangements, but the position is inconsistent nationally, which can lead to missed opportunities to protect children.

This change will improve join-up of children’s social care, police and health services with education, to better safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in local areas. It will also mean that all education and childcare settings must co-operate with safeguarding partners and ensure that those arrangements are fully understood and rigorously applied in their organisations. I hope that this clause has support from the Committee today.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Opposition do not have amendments to this clause, but we do have some questions. This change is generally a very good idea and we welcome it. I have sat where the Minister is sitting, so I am conscious that, even when a Minister wants to answer all the questions posed by the Opposition, it is sometimes impossible—but I hope, thinking about some of the questions in the last part of our proceedings, that she will continue to consider those and see whether she can get answers to them. I know it is utterly impossible to answer all these questions in real time.

On the Opposition Benches, we welcome the inclusion of education agencies in safeguarding arrangements. All too often, the school is the one agency that sees the child daily and has a sense of when they are in need of protection or are in danger. Our conversations with schools all underline that. We have heard that they welcome this change and that it is a good thing. Last year, schools were the largest referrer of cases, after the police, to children’s social care, and I know from friends who are teachers just how seriously they take this issue. One of my teacher friends runs a sixth form and she spends her spare time reading serious case reviews, so I know that teachers take this issue deadly seriously, and we want to help them to have as much impact as they can.

My questions relate to nurseries, particularly childminders, because this clause is about an extension to education, not just to schools. We understand that child protection meetings can take place via video conference to make them easier to attend. We would just like the Government to confirm and talk about what conversations they have had with those kinds of organisations, which are often literally one-woman bands, about how they will be able to participate, given their very limited staffing and the imperative to look after children in their care effectively.

If the childminder has to go off to some meeting and are shutting down their business for the day, do they have to ask the parents who leave their children with them to find their own childcare? How do we make it easier for these organisations, particularly in relation to really small, really vulnerable children, to take part in this process? We do not doubt that they will want to contribute; we just want some reassurance that the Department is thinking about how that will work well in practice.

The Government argue that education should not be a fourth safeguarding partner because, unlike with other safeguarding partners, there is not currently a single organisation or individual who can be a single point of accountability for organisations across the whole education sector and different types of educational institutions. I understand the Government’s argument, but there are other views. Barnardo’s says in its briefing that

“the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care recommended that the Department for Education make education the fourth statutory safeguarding partner, highlighting that the Department should ‘work with social care and school leaders to identify the best way to achieve this, ensuring that arrangements provide clarity.’

However, the new Bill falls short of this recommendation, mandating only that education providers should always be considered ‘relevant partners’. This should improve the recognition of the importance of education providers in safeguarding arrangements, but we believe that this does not go far enough to protect children at risk.

We recognise that the diverse nature of the education sector could pose a practical challenge in identifying a relevant senior colleague to represent education as a statutory partner. Education settings have a wealth of experience in working with children to keep them safe and we believe it is vital that options are explored to ensure they are able to fully participate in…the planning and delivery of local safeguarding arrangements.”

I want to hear what the Government’s response to those arguments is. As the Minister said, this is a rare legislative moment, so we want to ensure that these important contributions and questions are heard and answered.

Turning to a slightly different question, I understand that there might not be a single point of accountability—which is why this Government, like the previous Government, are not pursuing education providers as the fourth safeguarding partner—but to make this work well, a single point of contact for education might be sensible. Can the Minister confirm that, to support the successful operation of this provision, every local authority currently provides childminders in particular with a line they can call to discuss any concerns, both specific and more general? Schools generally know where to go, but is that true at the moment of nurseries and childminders?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Amendments 1 to 5, in my name, relate to the nomination of individuals by safeguarding partners for multi-agency child protection teams. These important amendments ensure that primary legislation is consistent. To be consistent with the Children Act 2004, the reference to those who nominate should be to the safeguarding partners, not to specific roles. It is, after all, the safeguarding partners who are best placed to make the nomination for individuals, and have the required expertise in health, education, social work and policing. We will continue to use the statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children”, to provide further information on safeguarding partner roles and responsibilities, which will include nominating individuals in the multi-agency child protection teams.

These amendments ensure consistency with the Children Act and set out that safeguarding partners are responsible for nominating individuals with the relevant knowledge, experience and expertise to multi-agency child protection teams.

[Neil O’Brien]

I have nothing to say about these amendments. I will reserve my comments for our amendment, which is in a different group. I completely understand what the Minister is doing.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment made: 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out

“the director of children’s services for”.—(Catherine McKinnell.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 19, in clause 3, page 5, line 3, at end insert—

“16EC Report on work and impact of multi-agency child protection teams

(1) The Secretary of State must report annually on the work and impact of multi-agency child protection teams.

(2) A report under this section shall include analysis of —

(a) the membership of multi-agency child protection teams;

(b) the specific child protection activities undertaken by such teams;

(c) best practice in multi-agency work; and

(d) the impact of multi-agency child protection teams on —

(i) information sharing;

(ii) risk identification; and

(iii) joining up services between children’s social care, police, health services, education and other agencies, including the voluntary sector.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to report on the effectiveness of multi-agency child protection teams.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Neil O’Brien]

Members will know that we are extremely supportive of this principle and agenda. We generally welcome the clause and think it is sensible, but we of course have questions, and we have tabled an amendment.

Members know that a huge amount of good multi-agency work is already going on to safeguard children, and it has the potential to address some of the really serious information-sharing gaps that have been so visible in pretty much every serious case review, from Victoria Climbié to the present day. Although we welcome the introduction of the multi-agency child protection teams, we have some substantive questions about them.

First, will the Minister set out her expectation for the activity of these teams? Teams can have a formal meeting, but then there is what they really do. If there is just one team in a local authority, that team may become a source of advice but not really generate new activity. I have a question about the scale of different local authorities and how many teams there will be in an area. This might seem a bit specific, but obviously there is a huge difference between Rutland, which is a single unitary authority with a population of 40,000, and Birmingham, which is also a single unitary authority. We need to ensure—I will come back to this in a second—that we can have provision for these teams to meet and work on a geography that makes sense.

The Government are building on a lot of activity that already exists, but they are slightly changing it in various ways. Will the Minister be specific about what these teams will do that is not being done today? How do they relate to, and how are they different from, existing multi-agency safeguarding hub teams? Linked to that, should we assume that they will be resourced to deal with all section 47 referrals? If they are not, it will potentially become another gatekeeping process—they would be making judgments in good faith, but not necessarily with the information to make them safely. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the teams will be expected to do things like carrying out home visits, attending strategy meetings and having a much clearer view of health information.

There is also the crucial area of private law proceedings, where children are all too often invisible. I wonder what the expectation is for the involvement of these teams in private law cases. There are real concerns, as we heard the other day, that when CAFCASS makes a referral to the local authority in these cases, it looks like the threshold is not met because of the lack of social services and police involvement with the family in the past. Particularly in cases of domestic violence, we know that those kinds of appearances can be deceptive.

The clause makes provision for two or more local authorities to work together to deliver multi-agency child protection teams, and the explanatory notes state that that would enable police and health services to work within local authority boundaries to make the best use of their resources, which they do not always do. I can see the sense in that. To go back to our neighbours in Rutland, they come under Leicestershire and Rutland for the police and for health, and they have a lot of cross-border students in their schools. However, I want to check that the reverse is also true, and that there will be no impediment to having multiple teams within a local authority, and no sense that the police or health services with a bigger geographical footprint should not be expected to service more than one team in a large local authority. That question is about the geography.

Another question is about the timeliness of meetings, which is crucial. The best possible group of people in the world could be down to attend a meeting, but if they do not meet often enough, things will go wrong. Does the clause give the Government the power to specify in regulations how often such meetings take place? Do the Government intend to specify that kind of thing, or—maybe perfectly reasonably—not? Will they try to establish some norms around the frequency of these teams meeting? I do not have an incredibly strong view; I am just interested.

I also have some questions about the cast list, which was the subject of the last group of amendments; we went from a named person with a specific role to someone from a particular organisation. Subsection (4) lists a social worker, a police officer, a health professional and so on. Is the assumption that it will be the same person who attends each time? What happens in the absence of those people? Presumably, a person of the same category can be substituted for a period—for example, if the policeperson on the team goes off sick, someone can be substituted.

Although I am not an expert, I think that having the same cast list each time is broadly the right model. It is a much better model than one where, for example, the social worker for that case turns up once and perhaps do not go to that meeting ever again or for another year, meaning they are not in a position to join the dots. However, there is always a risk that appointing specialists within a team deskills others on the team. That sense that everybody has to stay alert and maintain professional curiosity gets a bit lost, and there is an assumption that the specialists on the team will deal with it. That is obviously not what the Government intend, but can we get some reassurance that they have thought about how to avoid that?

In oral evidence on Tuesday, we heard from—[Interruption.] May I ask you, Sir Christopher, whether we are going until 1.30 pm? The Opposition Whip is looking anxiously at the clock.

[The Chair]

The Opposition Whip may be looking at the clock, as indeed am I. Under the rules that have been agreed, the Committee will meet again at 2 o’clock. If people wanted to have a reasonable time for lunch, normally, by convention, the Committee would adjourn at 1 o’clock and come back at 2 o’clock. That is obviously in the hands of the Committee itself—

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing clause stand part.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I have already talked about our general support for clause 3, as well as some of the issues around the geography, content and cast lists of the teams, which brings me on to funding. On Tuesday, we asked the Local Government Association about the new burdens doctrine and whether there would be clarity on funding for these new requirements. The Government do not plan to commence this clause until 2027, so will local authorities be appropriately resourced to meet these demands? In its summary of the Bill, the Department for Education says:

“Later commencement allows more time to secure funding and resources and workforces will have more time to engage and prepare for change.”

Do the Government know roughly how much extra funding will be required? As Ruth Stanier from the LGA said in her evidence to us on Tuesday,

“the new burdens doctrine must be applied in the usual way. There are a number of measures in this Bill for which additional funding will be required, for example the new multi-agency units.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 13, Q21.]

We are talking about those multi-agency units here. What are the Minister’s rough estimates of what will be required, and at roughly what point will that be agreed? Again, the DFE notes on the Bill say that it will be

“set out in regulations how the multi-agency child protection teams will carry out their day-to-day activities.”

That will be extremely specific; for example, it says:

“The new provisions will include a power for the Secretary of State to set out in regulations requirements for the practitioners who are nominated to be part of the multiagency child protection teams. This might include examples of the types of ‘minimum qualifications or experience’ that they will need, which have not been included in the legislation as this will require discussion with the relevant work forces, including police, health and education, to understand what would be relevant”.

The big question is: how much will this roughly cost, and when will the Government agree that with local government, so that we can fulfil the requirements of the new burdens doctrine?

I would like to turn to amendment 19. I have come to believe very strongly, in public services, in the importance of setting up self-improving dynamics whenever that is possible. The Japanese talk about the principle of “kaizen”, or continuous improvement, and really that is the spirit of our amendment. Everybody supports the idea of the new multi-agency meetings, and we are all supportive of the principle of trying to make that happen really well. We do not want just a meeting, or that the letter of the law is followed, but the spirit of it is. We really want to do this as well as we can, and that is what our amendment is about.

There are very different ways of making these things work, and they work in very different places already. There is lots of scope to learn from each other at the local level, and central Government have scope to learn from them all. The amendment is self-explanatory, so I will not go through it, but it is basically looking for a report on all the different aspects of the ways in which this clause plays out on the ground. I am keen to press it to a vote, and I hope it is one that the Government might accept, at least in some form.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is very good to see you in the Chair, Sir Edward. I think everybody agrees with the principle of this clause, and there is undeniable valuable in having all the relevant agencies working together. I am afraid it is invariably a conclusion of reviews that, when things go badly wrong, part of the issue is that working together has not functioned as well as it could. The Bill does not invent multi-agency working—that is not a new thing—but it does write something very specific into primary legislation, and that is welcome.

Amendment 19 is good and important and requires reporting back on the work and impact of multi-agency teams. What we need to focus on is actual practice. It is one thing to set out that so-and-so must talk to somebody else—no one would argue with that—but as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said, there is quite some variety in the way these things happen. Will there be more guidance in terms of operations to stress the importance of following process and procedure, but also recognising the centrality of professional curiosity and taking ownership of problems through to their solution?

I am keen to understand better from the Government the extent to which what the clause proposes is different from multi-agency safeguarding hubs, commonly known by their acronym, MASH. Is it the same, or is it for a subset of higher level cases? Are we drawing a distinction between safeguarding and child protection?

MASHs themselves have worked in quite different ways. I said that these things are not new—I remember that in 2012, when I was on the Education Committee, we did an inquiry in this area. We visited a couple of different MASHs and had a couple of local authorities, one from Devon and one from Leeds, at a Committee hearing. One of those authorities had a MASH; the other had actively decided not to because it felt that there were better ways of achieving some of the same aims. That highlighted the importance of what is done operationally and what is done in practice. We were frequently told about the advantages of physical colocation —simply being in the same room facing each other across the desk—but that does not guarantee that people will work as well together as they could. Relationships are incredibly important, and so is the willingness to appropriately share information, and these days that can arguably be done without colocation in ways that it could not in the past.

As far as I can make out, the clause does not adopt the principle from what we used to call the troubled families programme, which is now the supporting families programme, of having a designated key worker for each family. Can the Government say why that is, or if it is their intention that that should be the case? More generally, it would be interesting to hear how this programme works with the supporting families programme—probably still better known to many as the troubled families programme.

The creation of that programme straddled the previous change in Government: it started in pilot and research form before 2010 and came into being fully after 2010. Louise Casey is now Baroness Casey of Blackstock and still very involved in incredibly important work. Some of the work of that programme is on the key upstream stage where, sadly, we sometimes end up in child protection territory. Some of the common features identified in Baroness Casey’s report, “Listening to Troubled Families” —abuse, institutional care, violence, mental health problems, drug and alcohol abuse, and so on—are incredibly prevalent in this group.

I hope the Government can say more about how the multi-agency child protection teams and the supporting families programme would work together, particularly since that programme, which used to be in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, is coming or has come—I do not know if it already has—into the Department for Education, so there are great opportunities for good working with children’s services.

[Neil O’Brien]

My right hon. Friend asks a really good question, and I intervene to sharpen that further. He asks whether the new teams are displacing or replacing the MASHs. Does the Government think that the MASHs that exist now will still be running alongside these new teams, or does the one turn into the other?

On the point about continuity of knowledge, which is so important in these cases as often the same family is in trouble for a long time, is it the Government’s expectation that it would be quite normal for people who are currently on one of the MASHs to find themselves on the new teams as well, or is this a new thing? I am just trying to understand the intent.

[Damian Hinds]

I think amendment 19 has a lot of value and I hope it will be agreed.

I want to ask about resourcing. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has rightly asked about cash resourcing—how much there will be—and there is of course the new burdens principle to follow, but I want to ask about staff availability. It is one thing to legislate for people to do a certain thing, but if it is very difficult to hire those people, that is obviously an impediment. To what extent and, if it is possible to quantify, by how much, does this programme create a new human resource requirement? How many more person days per year are we talking about?

--- Later in debate ---

The flexibility will allow the multi-agency teams to work in a tailored way and bring in expert and specialised skills and knowledge to ensure that all aspects of a child’s wellbeing can be considered. Within those roles and responsibilities, the teams will address inconsistencies and ambiguities in child protection practice, and improve joint working. It will stop children falling through the cracks.

[Neil O'Brien]

I agree with everything the Minister is saying—it all sounds very sensible. She may be coming to this, but on this point about where MASHs already exist, do these new teams replace them? Are they likely to have similar members? What happens to the existing bodies when the new one is created?

[Catherine McKinnell]

As I said earlier, at the moment, local authority teams are not required to have multi-agency safeguarding hubs. We will build on the work that has been done and make sure that every local authority has a child protection multi-agency team, so that no child will fall through the gaps where provision does not currently exist.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I have two specific questions, although there may be no answer to the first—it may be for regulations, and there may be no decision yet. If a large local authority such as Birmingham wants to have more than one of these things, can it do so? My other question —which Iaised before the break—is about substitutes. What happens if one of the nominated people is sick? The meeting obviously still needs to go ahead, so can substitutes be used?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman is really getting into the detail of how these will work operationally and in practice. We are exploring through 10 pathfinder programmes how this will work most effectively, to ensure that no child falls through the cracks. This will be set out in greater detail to ensure that we have a consistent approach nationally. Obviously, the point is to ensure that it can be tailored to local need; indeed, different areas will ensure that they are bringing the expertise and adding to the capacity already in the system, wherever it is needed, to keep children safe. I implore members of the Committee to support the passing of this clause.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Information sharing and consistent identifiers

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 20, in clause 4, page 6, line 33, at end insert—

“(4A) Where the relevant person considers that the disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than not disclosing the information, this decision must be recorded.”

This amendment requires decisions made not to disclose information to be recorded.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 21, in clause 4, page 7, line 5, at end insert —

“(6A) Where information is disclosed under this section, the recipient must consider the welfare of others to whom the information may relate or involve and take steps to promote their welfare.”

[Neil O’Brien]

The first thing to say about clause 4 is that we are extremely supportive of the principle of consistent identifiers. This is something we were working to deliver when I was in Government. I remember being in meetings about it when I was at the Department of Health and Social Care, discussing for example whether it would be possible to use the NHS number as the identifier. We are really keen that this happens. We have seen far too many young people fall through the cracks because of inconsistent identification, which means that problems are not connected and dots are not joined up. Government Members will not always hear me say this, but this is a very good and important idea, and one of which we are completely supportive.

Our amendments are therefore tweaks to ensure the idea works as well as it can. I will also ask some questions that do not have an amendment with them, but which I hope the Government will take away and think about so that this can work as well as possible.

To start with our amendment 20, I understand the reason for the safety valve in clause 4(3); however, I am wary. In practice, how can a single agency take the decision not to share information until it knows what other information its partner agencies hold about the same case and person? Surely there needs to be a level of trust and strong information-sharing protocols to allow sharing to happen. For example, there might be concerns about a child who has delayed speech at school, but without knowing that the mother has suffered years of abuse, been to A&E and never called the police, it is difficult to judge the situation accurately. What is the Minister’s answer to that concern about the safety valve? I hope one part of the answer can be our amendment. That is what it is there for.

Where information disclosure is not carried out because of a risk of detriment, something pretty serious is obviously happening. That information itself—that there has been deliberate, conscious non-disclosure—is very important. It is information from which we can possibly learn, and we certainly do not want it to just disappear into the ether and be lost. That is totally against the spirit of what we are all trying to do here. Our suggestion is that a conscious decision not to disclose for that reason should be clearly recorded, so that there is no confusion later about what happened or whether it was a conscious choice to not disclose, or just inaction or error.

Our amendment 21 would insert a new subsection (6A), in order to encourage those involved in taking such decisions to consider not just the welfare of the person whose information is being disclosed, but

“the welfare of others to whom the information may relate or involve”.

The person whose confidential information is being shared is not necessarily the only one whose welfare is going to be affected by that sharing.

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

The amendment appears to have two parts. The first is the requirement to consider the welfare of others to whom the information may relate. That seems quite reasonable; however, the requirement to take steps to promote the welfare of potentially anybody to whom the information may relate seems to me very broad.

[Neil O’Brien]

I thank the hon. Lady for her thoughtful question. It is a very general point to say that people should take steps to think about their welfare. We are not asking people to move mountains or work miracles or anything like that—I cannot think of a clearer way of putting it. We want them not just to think about it, but to act on it, and there are two different amendments here.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman has set out his questions. To clarify, amendment 20 would require the relevant person to record their decision to withhold information if they considered disclosing it to be more detrimental to the child than not disclosing it.

We absolutely agree that practitioners should record the reasons for their information-sharing decisions. However, that should happen irrespective of the reason for sharing or not sharing particular information. The current, non-statutory information sharing guidance for practitioners and managers issued by the Department for Education covers this point, making it clear that practitioners should keep a record of their decisions, including their rationale. Rather than legislating on this issue, it is our intention to cover it in statutory guidance, which relevant persons would be required to have regard to in relation to these matters.

I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman raised a range of other issues and questions about clause 4 more generally, and I will respond to those in the clause stand debate.

[Neil O'Brien]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I beg to move amendment 44, in clause 4, page 7, line 37, after “welfare” insert “or wellbeing”.

--- Later in debate ---

Ultimately, some of this governance stuff covers not only the Department for Education but the Department of Health and Social Care and the Cabinet Office. I would love to know, even at this stage, about the involvement the Information Commissioner’s Office and its future involvement.

[Neil O’Brien]

I have already asked most of my questions, but I want to add some simple ones to those. First, I may have missed this in the conversation, but is the intent that the system will be for people up to the age of 18? Secondly, what are the Government’s initial thoughts about people who do not have NHS numbers?

Thirdly, I wish to sharpen and bring out the point I was making in my questions about all the different get-outs from the system. The case of Victoria Climbié is the ultimate example: she had eight different identifiers with her name spelled differently every single time. The worry is that the system needs not to have too many holes in it—although it needs some, otherwise everything would grind to a halt.

At the bottom of page 7 of the Bill, proposed new section 16LB(5) of the Children Act 2004 says:

“Subsection (4) applies only so far as the designated person considers that the inclusion of the consistent identifier is likely to facilitate the exercise…of a function…that relates to safeguarding”.

That is one out. Proposed new subsection (6) says:

“Subsection (4) does not apply if the designated person considers that”

it would be “detrimental” to include it, which is another out—and perfectly sensible in a way. Proposed new subsection (7) says that the person does not need to comply if they do not know the consistent identifier and it would slow things down. So there are quite a lot of outs.

We will not press our amendment to a vote, and the Minister is right to say that the statutory guidance requires a record of why decisions have been made at the local level, but I am sure that the Department and officials would want to set things up in such a way that a national report can be built out of that data, to figure out what is going on at a local level.

Finally, let me explain what I was going on about with the complexity of parsing proposed new subsection (9), which says:

“A duty under this section does not operate to require or authorise the processing of information which would contravene the data protection legislation (but the duty must be taken into account in determining whether the processing would contravene that legislation).”

That is quite a complicated sentence that I find difficult. I would be supportive of Ministers if they want to give frontline professionals more legal protection so that they think, “I don’t need to worry about data protection first—I need to worry about the safety of children first.”

[Catherine McKinnell]

I totally accept that Members’ comments have all been made with a view to making sure that the legislation can be as effective as it needs to be, and that we all share the desire to ensure that it serves to safeguard children.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked whether the information-sharing duty is the same as mandatory reporting. The duty in the clause and the mandatory reporting are intended to address different problems. The information-sharing duty underpins how existing multi-agency partners, along with schools and early years providers, can share—I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s philosophical reflection on the word “share”—and request information among themselves so that they can build a full picture of a child. They can then use that to assess risk and put in place appropriate support and intervention.

The mandatory reporting of child sexual abuse is due to be introduced in Home Office legislation. It will impose a duty on professionals to report instances of child sexual abuse, and will also impose criminal sanctions on those who prevent others from reporting abuse. The duty in the clause and mandatory reporting have different purposes and different legislative frameworks.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire asked about the terminology and the meaning of the word “share”. In this context, the sharing of information covers the exchange of knowledge, data or insights with others, and it can happen in a number of ways.

On the specific question of whether information about an individual child or dataset is relevant, we intend the duty to be about supporting individual children day to day, to ensure their safeguarding and to make sure that they and their families get the support they need.

The right hon. Gentleman thoughtfully raised a range of important questions and kindly acknowledged that I would not be able to respond to them all in this debate. We will take them away and work them through, and that will feed into how we pilot this idea and test the system so that we get this right, as he rightly highlighted.

The single unique identifier in the NHS system will apply to children up to the age of 18. The right hon. Gentleman asked what would happen to a child without an NHS number; that will have to be considered as part of the pilot, which is why we are undertaking one. This is an important change. We do not underestimate the challenges of delivering it, but we are determined that it will make the difference to children and to safeguarding.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5

Information: children in kinship care and their carers

--- Later in debate ---

Given that kinship care arrangements are particularly prevalent among a number of ethnic minority communities, where culturally it is much more normal for extended families to live together, cousins may well be involved in the arrangements. I understand that the Department has confirmed that such wider family members are intended to be captured by the phrase “other person connected”, but nowhere in the Bill is the term defined. Nor has there been any indication as yet that regulations or statutory guidance will make plain who falls within the scope of that phrase. Clarity is important for families and practitioners. I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that and on the other issues raised in the amendments.

[Neil O’Brien]

I rise to speak to clause 5 and amendment 22. The previous Government were promoting kinship care and there is no great disagreement about it; in fact, there is great agreement, including with the hon. Member for Twickenham. I pay tribute to her work on the issue, and she is right that her amendment 39 is similar to our amendment 22.

Creating a duty for a local authority to publish a local kinship care offer seems sensible to provide clarity and to ensure that kinship families are aware of what support is available. The statutory guidance on kinship care, which exists already, states that every local authority must publish information about the services they offer in their area to children in kinship care and their approach towards meeting the needs of those children. That has been there since 2011, but too many still have no up-to-date offer, so we are supportive of clause 5.

This is an example of the current Government building on the direction of travel under the previous Government. The kinship care strategy we published in December 2023 set out a definition of kinship care that has been used in the updated statutory guidance on kinship care published by this Government in October.

One important reason for having something that is public and visible to everyone is that when many people hear mention of kinship care they think of uncles, aunts and grannies, but of course a lot of kinship carers are not related to the child. Some 140,000 children live in kinship care, but a further 24,000 live with kinship carers to whom they are not related, such as family friends.

The Minister will be aware of the concerns expressed by kinship carers and the organisations that represent them, such as the Family Rights Group, that the definition of kinship care in this clause of the Bill—on pages 9 and 10, in proposed new section 22I of the Children Act 1989—risks providing less clarity and potentially greater confusion for children, families, practitioners and agencies. They argue that it does not adequately address the different types of kinship care arrangements, while the expectations for councils to involve families in shaping or promoting the local offer are minimal. What is the Minister’s response to that, and what does she plan to do about it?

The Family Rights Group also made a specific point about something that should be amended in the Bill, stating:

“The Bill includes a list of categories of services available in the authority’s area that the kinship local offer should include. We are very concerned by the omission of legal support and family group decision making from this list. These categories already appear in statutory guidance but not…the Bill.”

The Family Rights Group proposed an amendment to remedy that, which we tabled. Will the Government at least consider taking it up?

The Family Rights Group made another point:

“We are concerned that the Bill sets low expectations regarding the involvement of children, kinship carers and others in the development of kinship local offers, as well as in respect of publication and transparency. This is in contrast to the SEN and disability local offer…established in section 30 of the 2014 Children and Families Act. That legislation gives the Secretary of State the power to set out in regulations how the offer should be published, when it should be reviewed, and”—

this is the key bit—

“how children and families are involved in developing it.”

That takes us to our amendment 22. Again, as with previous ones we have tabled, our amendment seeks to set in train a self-improving system by collecting feedback from children in kinship care. We have heard several times during our sittings about the importance of the voice of the child and the voices of those who provide care; this is a way of ensuring that we hear them. We are proposing a light-touch process in the amendment: keeping a record of feedback. That helps to protect from the loss of knowledge when personnel inevitably change, so we can still have that feedback and knowledge. It also provides a resource for learning and performance improvement at the local level. By publishing it, as we suggest in the amendment, we allow for better public discussion and for learning at the national level.

That is the purpose of our amendment. We have no great disagreement about the spirit of this clause—quite the opposite, in fact—and we hope that the Minister will adopt or in some way implement the ideas in our amendment.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I rise to speak to the amendments and to clause 5 stand part.

On amendment 38, which the hon. Member for Twickenham tabled, I appreciate her engagement and great interest in the kinship local offer, and I will explain how we see it working. We expect that local authorities would include information on legal support when setting out their general approach to supporting children living in kinship care and to kinship carers under the newly inserted section 22H(1)(a) to the Children Act 1989, as set out in clause 5. To be clear, the listed categories of information about services have been kept very broad by design, in order to cover as many different kinds of services as possible. That means that local authorities could reasonably be expected to provide information about legal support under one of the categories that we have included.

Clause 1 already sets out the requirement to offer family group decision making at pre-proceedings and new section 22H(1)(b) to the 1989 Act will require local authorities to publish information about financial support that may be available to children living in kinship care and their carers. Therefore, I would like to reassure Members that the list of categories of information about services in the Bill is deliberately not exhaustive. It also remains our intention that further detail about what we expect to be included in the kinship local offer will be made in statutory guidance, so we will take on board the points made in this debate. We believe that amending clause 5 as has been suggested would not achieve that effect. We believe that we have the measures in place that will deliver what the hon. Lady is looking for, so we kindly ask her to withdraw her amendment.

On amendments 22 and 39, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and the hon. Member for Twickenham respectively, I appreciate the concern that exists about consulting children and carers on the kinship local offer and making sure that their feedback is collected. The children’s social care national framework and the existing kinship care statutory guidance make it clear that children’s wishes and feelings should be taken into account whenever adults try to solve problems and make decisions about them, and local authorities are legally obliged to adhere to article 12 of the UN convention on the rights of the child, which makes it very clear that the child has the right to express their views, their feelings and their wishes in all matters affecting them and to have their views considered and taken seriously.

The kinship care statutory guidance also sets the expectation that local authorities should consult children, kinship carers and parents as appropriate in drawing up their kinship local offers, and set out how the kinship local offer has been informed by their views, to ensure transparency.

New section 22H(7) to the 1989 Act states:

“A local authority must review and update its kinship local offer from time to time”,

to give opportunities for the views and opinions of children living in kinship care and their carers to be taken into account. However, since the intention of clause 5 is to ensure that local authorities publish information about what their kinship local offer includes, what is published should be a clear reflection of the services available, and consultation on the publication would be of limited value.

We cannot be more specific about how kinship local offers are published, because that would potentially limit the accessibility of the information. For example, requiring online publication would potentially limit access to the information among those who do not have access to that technology. For that reason, new section 22H(6) of the 1989 Act already puts an obligation on local authorities to:

“take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that children”

and kinship carers

“receive the information relevant to them.”

Consequently, we do not believe that the amendments are required, as there are sufficient safeguards within clause 5 and other legal frameworks, and because the local authority will be best placed to determine what information should be published. More prescription in legislation might hinder local authorities as they design and publish their local offer in a flexible way that reaches people and makes the maximum impact.

I will respond to the question raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham and to some extent by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about some lack of clarity on the definitions of a connected person. To be clear, that is because they are defined in the Children Act 1989. The term “relative” is deliberately not defined in the Bill, because the measures on the kinship local offer are not freestanding: they form part of the 1989 Act. Although section 105 of that Act defines relatives, new section 22I(1)(a) under clause 5 includes

“a relative, friend or other person connected with the child”,

so it is broad enough to cover every type of person. Although cousins are not specifically defined as a relative, they would fall within the category of another person connected with the child. I hope that has answered all the questions raised by hon. Members, and I urge them to support this clause.

[Neil O'Brien]

The Family Rights Group raised a specific point. It would effectively like to add another item to the list on page 9, line 17 of the Bill, which currently states that the list of support services should include

“health…relationships…education and training…accommodation”.

The Family Rights Group would like to add legal support to that list. Will the Minister go away and have a look at that?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the request; I have dealt with that in my response, in that we feel that we have included broad headings that are clearly not exhaustive and leave room for local authorities to publish the whole range of services that they feel will support kinship carers. Fundamentally, we know that having a good kinship care offer is in the best interests of a local authority, because it is the one supporting the children who it knows need that care, but I will certainly take away the hon. Gentleman’s specific consideration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the Minister for her response on the point about legal support, which is in amendment 38 along with financial support and family group decision making. I intended to push the amendment to a vote, but, given her assurances that this will be in statutory guidance, I am happy to withdraw the amendment and not push it to a vote.

On her point about connected persons, we need some clarity. As she says, the term “relative” is in the Children Act 1989, but it does not cover cousins. Practitioners on the ground and families would like clarity for those other arrangements. Whether or not that is in guidance, it needs to be spelled out further. Nevertheless, based on the assurances the Minister has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6

Promoting educational achievement

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Neil O'Brien]

We have not tabled an amendment to clause 6, as this is another area where the Government are building on the direction of travel set under the last Government. The role of the virtual school head was already extended on a non-statutory basis from September 2021 to include strategic oversight of the educational outcomes of children with a social worker in a local authority’s area; through this Bill, it is now being extended again to champion the education of children, including children in kinship care.

Educational outcomes for children in need and children in care are still far too low, despite the efforts of successive Governments over the last 40 years to improve them. About one in five children in need and looked-after children achieve grade 4 and above in English and Maths GCSEs, compared with 65% of all children. That is a huge gap.

As the Minister knows, local authorities have an existing duty to monitor child in need or section 17 plans, which I believe is about twice a year. Will the Minister clarify whether the Bill gives us an opportunity to escalate that monitoring? Does it extend to children in kinship care, where a child is falling behind or where their attendance drops sharply? Have the Government considered extending priority school admissions for children in kinship care and making them eligible for pupil premium plus?

I have a question about how a single person can discharge this duty in any local authority, let alone a large one—thinking of dried Birmingham, Kent, Leeds or somewhere like that. What is the Government’s expectation of what the person responsible for delivering this work will be able to do?

[Damian Hinds]

The clause extends the role in legislation of virtual school heads to children in need, previously looked-after children and children in kinship care. The virtual school and virtual school heads concepts are not new. The concept was first piloted in 2006 in Liverpool. It was the Children and Families Act 2014, which we both remember well, Sir Edward, that required all local authorities to administer pupil premium plus.

The Oxford University report on the virtual school heads concept noted that there had been improvements in outcomes at key stage 2 and key stage 4 for looked-after children and a marked decrease in permanent exclusions. However, as the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, rightly said, there is still a yawning gap in attainment and all manner of life outcomes for this group of children.

Previously, looked-after children were added to the virtual school head cohort in 2018. There was a pilot to include children in need in 2021. From 2023-24 onwards, pupil premium plus was extended to age 16-plus. Once again, this is a policy area where there is no difference between us; the current Government’s work builds on previous Governments’ work, and we welcome that. We also note the successes of the virtual school heads concept.

My question is about the danger of dilution. In terms of orders of magnitude, there are 80,000 or 85,000 children in care—looked-after children, but there are 400,000 children in need, so that is a big increase in number. I note that paragraph 4 of proposed section 23ZZA(4) of the 1989 ACT introduced by clause 6 puts a strategic duty on to virtual school heads; it is not about individual children. The bigger number of children there is, with that dilution effect, there is a risk that some of the benefits of the virtual school heads program reduce. We can counter that, to a degree, by upping the resource. My real question is therefore about what resource will be behind this measure, to make sure that the maximum effect can be felt from virtual school heads.

As we talked about earlier on multi-agency working, it is actual practice that matters. People have been working in different ways, and we can learn from what works in different places, but what work will there be to propagate the best and most effective practice between places across the country?

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Sixth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

As I said in the last sitting, I am grateful to the Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, for his thoughtful contributions and specific questions. I will take those points away and I will try to address as many of them as I can in this debate.

As required, we have produced impact assessments for all measures in the Bill, and have followed the better regulation framework for measures that are in its scope. As outlined on gov.uk, the Regulatory Policy Committee, or RPC, is currently reviewing the Bill’s impact assessments and will produce an opinion when its scrutiny has been completed. We will publish those impact assessments shortly. We have also conducted child’s rights impact assessments, where children are directly impacted by the policies and/or there are particular groups of children and young people who are more likely to be affected than others, as I mentioned this morning. There is no requirement to publish these documents in relation to England, but the documents are currently under review, and we will also publish those shortly.

The shadow Minister made a number of points about the shortage of foster carers. Local authorities have a duty to place looked-after children in their care in registered children’s homes. We understand that sometimes authorities need to place a child quickly, including when there are no suitable registered places immediately available, but the Government are clear that all providers of accommodation for children should register with Ofsted. We are also helping local authorities to meet their sufficiency duty by investing more than £130 million in fostering hubs and kinship care and providing additional funding for children’s homes, including more than £36 million specifically on foster carer recruitment and retention.

In the light of the questions that the shadow Minister raised, I also wanted to respond on how we are working with Ofsted to embed the reforms in the Bill. As Sir Martyn set out in his evidence, Ofsted is a key partner in delivering reform of children’s social care, and we are working closely with Ofsted to ensure that each of the measures presented to the House can be implemented carefully, alongside the non-legislative asks that Ofsted also needs to respond to in parallel. The Department has provided funding for a children’s social care transformation team in previous years, which has built the capacity for Ofsted to respond effectively to all the changes we have asked of it to date and ensure that it can meet the demands placed on it by the Bill.

The shadow Minister asked about the term “reasonably suspects”. Ofsted will have the grounds to suspend registration, which could be based on minor or major non-compliance, and may consider that that is a problem in other settings owned by the same provider group. That would be a reasonable suspicion, and it will be a matter for Ofsted to apply those judgments.

On the question of whether the bar is too high for provider group-level intervention, Ofsted’s power to cancel registrations is broad and allows it to intervene when the regulatory requirements are not being met. If Ofsted reasonably suspects that two or more settings owned by a provider group are not meeting those requirements, it has the power to ensure that the provider group acts to make improvements in the settings. If an issue arises in a single setting, it is unlikely to be indicative of wider issues in the provider group, and Ofsted would use its existing powers in relation to registered providers at the individual setting level. It is right that the bar at which Ofsted should be able to require actions of a provider group is the same bar that would enable Ofsted to take action against individual settings, where that is already set out in legislation and guidance. That ensures that this further power is proportionate and that it can only be used where there are real issues of concern arising in settings.

These powers supplement the existing inspection regime. If Ofsted has serious safeguarding concerns, it has the power to close individual settings.

The shadow Minister also spoke of the need to speed up action by Ofsted. The Hesley Group case showed what can happen when a culture and environment in a provider group allows a culture of silence and allows abhorrent abuse to take place. These new powers will allow Ofsted to act quickly and go directly to the provider group to seek improvement if it reasonably suspects that requirements are not being met, which it could not do with any legal backing in the Hesley case. If the provider group does not improve its settings, Ofsted can take action. Where there are serious safeguarding risks, ultimately Ofsted has existing robust powers to cancel a registration and close the setting.

On why we are not introducing inspection of provider groups, Ofsted inspects settings at a minimum of once per year, using the social care common inspection framework. Inspection is not warranted at provider group level—the organisation that owns the providers who run the settings—given the existing robust regime for inspection of individual settings. Provider oversight will supplement inspections to ensure that Ofsted can take the quickest and most effective action for the benefit of children. In many situations, the provider oversight measures will not be necessary, as most provision is rated good or outstanding. Inspection of provider groups would, in many cases, simply duplicate what Ofsted is already doing. Ofsted is already able to cancel registrations in respect of settings if necessary. Provider oversight ensures that multiple cancellations of registrations are not necessary.

On the point about compliance with action and plans relating to litigation, it will be a straightforward question of whether a provider has implemented the improvement plan, which will have been agreed between the provider group and Ofsted. We do not foresee that it will lead to any lengthy litigation.

The shadow Minister spoke about local authorities who place in unregistered settings. Local authorities have a duty, of course, to place looked-after children in their care in registered children’s homes. We understand that sometimes authorities need to place a child quickly, including when there are no suitable registered places immediately available, but Government are really clear that all providers of accommodation for children should register with Ofsted. We are helping local authorities to meet their sufficiency duty by investing more than £130 million in fostering hubs and kinship care, and providing additional funding for children’s homes.

Finally, Ofsted will ask local authorities for information on their use of unregistered provision ahead of any inspections. If there are any concerns, Ofsted may focus on unregistered provision in the local authority’s next inspection. That could include the decision-making processes leading to use of this provision and the statutory duties to plan for sufficient places to meet the area’s needs.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I simply want to lodge a very specific question about proposed new section 30ZC(3)(a) of the Care Standards Act 2000 and the category of people who may not be given a regulatory fine but instead must be prosecuted. I raised the issue in this morning’s session about whether those people would not be able to get a regulatory fine because of the individual case being dealt with, or whether it was the case that anybody who had a previous history of being found guilty of any of these things could not have a regulatory fine applied to them. I would be grateful if the Minister can clear that up now, or if he will undertake to write to me about it. It is just to understand what the law is proposing in that respect.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the shadow Minister for those comments. We will certainly take that away and get him a response.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 11 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13

Financial oversight

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is actually quite difficult to talk to clause 13, as it looks as though pretty much all the important detail here is to be worked out in regulations. Of course, the Government should support local authorities to minimise the risk of disruption to children in homes or independent fostering placements from providers getting into financial difficulty, and financial oversight should indeed be part of their registration conditions. So far, so good.

However, proposed new section 30ZE(2) of the Care Standards Act 2000 states that a financial oversight condition

“is a condition specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.”

Subsection (4) lists examples such as size, the number of children looked after, geographical concentration and so on. Though this area is being left to regulations, could the Minister say more about the sort of thresholds the Government are considering for these metrics—particularly as the Secretary of State will have so much power, including to alter all the criteria in regulations? Although this is broadly a sensible measure, it is quite an open-ended and new power.

The clause is already quite long, but the Opposition wondered about an improvement, perhaps as it goes through the other place, to fundamentally change the registration approach for any new market entrants, so that it is a condition of delivery that they provide financial transparency up to the parent company level, give a quarterly going concern update to the regulator and provide financial information as reasonably requested by the regulator. Has the Department considered similar requirements, so that all providers would have to give full financial transparency as a matter of course and further investigation would follow if concerns were raised?

We are completely sympathetic to proportionality in regulation, but in this case we could reasonably put the onus on providers to share the information systematically, rather than having to wait for a tip-off from a whistleblower or for a concern to become apparent. Sometimes it is the analysis of consistently reported data that provides the tip-off that there is a problem.

To use an example from a slightly different field, in my constituency I have been involved in cases where the integrated care board is regulating GP practices, and I have always thought there is a strong case for ICBs to get more data up front. Twice, when there has been a problem in my constituency and I have talked to the ICB afterwards, it seemed to me that if it had been getting financial data, the issue would have been obvious and there would have been signs long before whistleblowers ever went to the Care Quality Commission. I wonder whether consistent reporting analysis of data would allow us to see problems coming before we get to whistleblowers and other problems down the line. One issue is therefore whether we should have reporting on a more regular basis.

The Opposition have worries of the same kind about this clause as we did about clause 11, though in this case, instead of an improvement plan, it is called a recovery and resolution plan. Again, thinking about independent schools, there is a risk that time and resource get spent preparing the request for the plan, writing the plan, challenging the plan as needed, writing a better plan and going through iterations. In the case of these providers, do we have the financial expertise, either in Ofsted or the Department, to assess the plans? It looks as though there is a recognition that we do not, because proposed new section 30ZI includes the power to arrange for an independent business review. That makes sense, but for reasons best known to the Bill drafters that does not appear to include scrutinising the recovery and resolution plan. I am not sure why not. I do not know whether that is a slip of the draftsman’s pen, as they say, or whether it is deliberate.

My understanding is that Ofsted already has the power to inspect the financial position of schools, but there is a limit on what it does because of the need for a high level of expertise to pick through these cases. Looking at the accounts of a school or group of schools is simpler than analysing the complex debt and ownership structures that we see in some of the private equity-owned children’s homes.

In practice we know that the market is so tight for placements that the loss of even a smaller provider would be disruptive, and the timing of the issuing of the advanced warning notices set out in proposed new section 30ZJ will be terminal for the affected businesses. Page 47 of the policy summary states that the regulations may be extended in scope,

“so that they may provide that a person is not fit to carry on an establishment or agency if a parent undertaking has failed to comply with the financial oversight scheme.”

I am unclear where that provision is in the Bill. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that, because it is quite a complicated clause. Are there any other potential extensions of the Secretary of State’s power by regulations here? Could the Minister clarify the thinking behind allowing Ofsted to determine that someone applying for registration is not a fit and proper person to manage an organisation in this area?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I rise to speak to amendment 25 and clause 14. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for what she said about our amendment. I completely agree that, ideally, we would have what we are asking for on a regular basis, but just to be clear, the requirement on the Secretary of State to report to Parliament details and analysis of available placements is in amendment 25 because we want to keep the focus firmly on supply and capacity, which I think we agree are the ultimate drivers of the problem we are addressing.

As we said in response to the oral statement to the House by the Secretary of State, we welcome the continuing focus on issues that we identified, and we set up the market intervention advisory group to look at that when we were in government. The heart of the problem, however, as I think we all recognise, is the lack of supply of high-quality places in residential, kinship and foster care for looked-after children. Demand for such places outstrips supply, and that is what is causing the high cost of placements.

It is striking that in its 2022 report, the Competition and Markets Authority did not recommend a profit cap because, in its words,

“The central problem facing the market…is the lack of sufficient capacity.”

The CMA concluded that taking measures to limit the profitability of providers would

“risk increasing the capacity shortfall.”

So if we do not take action to increase capacity first, ironically, we risk simply driving up prices and exacerbating the shortage of places.

Likewise, the review commissioned by the last Government and carried out by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) found that profit caps would not work as it would be,

“relatively easy for providers to reallocate income and expenditure to maintain profit levels”,

a point already alluded to by the hon. Member for Twickenham. The capacity problem rests on the availability of places and the demand for those places. We spoke previously about the need to do much more to grow fostering to reduce demand. Our amendment is designed to ensure that that capacity issue remains at the front of everybody’s mind at both the national and the local levels, so that at neither level do we fall into thinking that we can fix this without primarily fixing supply.

I understand the argument that it cannot hurt to have the power in the clause, which is the reason why we will not vote against it, but it is unlikely to change things very much compared with increasing supply. In fairness, the Bill’s policy notes state that the profit cap power

“is intended only to be used as a last resort should other measures not have the expected impact”.

The hon. Member for Twickenham talked about it being a backstop. My only worry is we should not even rely on it as a backstop. As the previous independent review and the CMA highlight, it would not be easy to use. One reason is that it would inevitably have to be backward-looking. The Government’s policy notes state:

“We are aware that the administration of the profit cap will be a retrospective look back at whether or not the profit cap has been breached in a past period. It will therefore not necessarily prevent breaches in itself, but it will allow action to be taken retrospectively if such breaches have occurred and act as a disincentive for further breaches.”

We will be looking backwards at a sector where there are a lot of complicated financial arrangements, and because we are looking backwards, people will have time to do all kinds of things to make sure that they look like they are complying, for the reasons I have mentioned.

As Ministers take this measure through the other place and consider implementation, I strongly recommend that, if they regulate for fines, they set up an absolutely iron-clad mechanism to ensure that those fines are paid. I was very disturbed to learn from an answer to a parliamentary question the other day that the Home Office has no idea what proportion of the fines imposed for illegal working are actually paid. In that sector, people just move on—they set up a new company, or get their brother to start a new thing. They just move on, and they do not pay the fine. It is widely known that we do not even know how many people are paying those fines. Obviously, we need to prevent that from happening in this sector, where there is equal scope to move on, to set up new things and collapse the old, and so escape fines. I am sure Ministers are seized of that risk; I just wanted to emphasise what they need to do when regulations are made.

Another way out that Ministers might want to try to close off is that some in the sector adopt offshore models of provision. Might the Government want to use this rare legislative moment to discourage, either in primary legislation or by giving themselves the power to regulate, the commissioning of places with providers that are domiciled offshore? They might want to take that power now, but even if they fix it, there will continue to be so many opportunities to fudge and to manage profits with interest and debt.

I do not mean to labour this because, as I listen to some people in the debate, including Ministers, I hear that they understand the difficulties, but then I hear from some other people, and they think, “Oh, we can just control prices to get out of this, without addressing the underlying real problem about supply.” When I was at the Treasury, one reason we were really keen on the work we were leading on through the OECD on base erosion and profit shifting was that we were faced with the endless generation of new tax wheezes and profit-shifting arrangements. They all had these exotic names—the Dutch sandwich, the green jersey and the double Irish; people were constantly generating new ways of moving profits around.

I want to bring that to life a bit by asking some questions. How would profit be defined for the purposes of the cap? The policy summary talks about

“(on average) profits of 19.4% on fostering, 22.6% on children’s homes and 35.5% on supported accommodation.”

I went back to look at the 2022 CMA report from which those numbers are drawn, but it just talks about margins, so I was not clear on whether we were talking about pre-tax, post-tax, or earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation. I am keen to understand what measure of profit we are using.

What analysis have the Department done to think about the capital needs of the sector over the next five years? It will need large sums, which may make profit capping harder. Fundamentally, there is a big question about what level of profit the Department for Education deems to be acceptable. In in her articulate and thoughtful remarks, the hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned one provider that had a very high rate and another that she said was more acceptable. That is the heart of the issue: given the powers that are being taken, do Ministers at this stage have some rough barometer of what they would regard as unacceptable profits?

Alongside this debate, even as we as we speak, the consultation is running. Obviously, in an ideal world it would have been much better to have had the results of that consultation before the debate and before we moved to legislate. To say we are being asked to sign a blank cheque is an overstatement; I am less worried about it than that. Obviously, though, it would have been much better to have the results of the consultation. What is the timescale of the consultation and when will we have some results from it? Is the Minister already able to share any findings?

I am labouring the point slightly, but I want the Minister’s reaction to the issue, which I am trying to raise in different ways, of the difficulty of capping profits in this kind of industry with these kinds of players so that the concerns that caused the CMA and the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington not to recommend profit caps do not come to bear in practice.

A fundamental question is what the evidence is that, on a like-for-like basis, private sector providers are more expensive than either charities or local authority provision in this area. The numbers may exist, but I have not seen them. If the margins are so high, why are more providers not entering the market? It is a strange thing: there is not enough supply, but we think profits are too high. What is the barrier to entry? It may be that all those questions are addressed in the impact assessment, which is one reason that it is frustrating that we still do not have it.

The DFE says that it is trying to do other things to tackle excess profits. In its policy summary notes to the Bill, it said:

“Until these other measures have had time to be implemented and have effect, we will not know whether regulatory action in the form of a profit cap is necessary.”

That is totally sensible; I completely agree. What are the Minister’s thoughts on timing for making a decision on that? We have a consultation now. The Ministers are trying to do other things to tackle excess profits now; once implemented, they will take time to have an effect, if they are going to have an effect. In what year will we potentially make a decision on the profit cap? As I started to make the mental Gantt chart, I wondered whether this was a decision for the end of this Parliament or the next. I just want a sense of what Ministers think about the timing for making that decision.

Page 53 of the policy summary notes says:

“The level of any future profit cap would depend on a number of factors, including market conditions at the point that we make a decision that a cap is needed.”

That line is a bit mysterious. This may be obvious, but it is not obvious to me—what does that mean in practice? I could not work out which way round it was: would there be no profit capping if supply was too limited, as there would be no scope to do it, or would profit capping come in if supply was limited and prices higher than Ministers wanted? I was not sure in which direction the arrows ran between market conditions and the decision on having a profit cap.

We are not against the clause standing part of the Bill. We are obviously keen on our amendment, and indeed the improvement to it suggested by the hon. Member for Twickenham, but, as an amendment, it is what it is. But all of this is just an aim. We think there are massive limits to how usable this power will be in practice and we do not want it to become a distraction from fixing the main issue, which is supply. To use an example from housing policy, which is apt, given the Chair’s former Select Committee role, the places around the world that have tried to rely on rent controls to fix housing problems generally fail. The people who focus on supply generally do much better. That is the spirit behind our amendment and our questions to the Minister.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is good to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. I rise briefly to echo some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and to ask a couple of questions. I have total sympathy with what Ministers are trying to do here. Having spent a bit of time at the DFE, I know the pain of seeing the amounts of money going out from local authorities for some very expensive placements.

The thing I always found vexing, and still do to this day, is exactly the thing the shadow Minister mentioned. If there are fat margins to be had, ordinarily, in a Schumpeterian world, people come into that—again, I hesitate to use the word—market. The insurmountable barriers stopping that from happening were never clear to me. It was not just that additional supply was not coming in to bring down unit costs, but that, on occasion, there was no place to be found. It is very important that we understand the underlying economics of this, bearing in mind, as ever, that we are talking primarily about the care of children.

The profit made by an entity cannot be limited, ultimately, because that is the residual left at the end of the year between revenue and cost. All one can do is either to choose not to use an entity that makes a profit of more than a certain amount, or seek some form of clawback. I note from the Bill that it is the latter approach that Ministers wish to take, as in proposed new section 30ZM. Do they seek to use this power as a fine—a penalty—for having a profit above whatever is deemed the appropriate level, or in proportion to it? In other words, do they seek to claw back the entirety of the surplus—the profit made—in excess of what is deemed a fair return?

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

I thank the Minister for his kind remarks about my comments, but he is aware that the SEND system is in crisis—he and his fellow Ministers hear that every other week in the Chamber. He knows that local authority finances are on the brink because of SEND costs, and that those deficits are driven to a certain extent by the spending on private provision. I am curious as to why the Government are so hesitant to take action in this space, yet they are happy to slap VAT on parents wishing to send their children to independent schools. This amendment is about tackling specific providers that are clear outliers in the fees they are charging. It is a targeted intervention that could really help local authorities and, in turn, children who are desperate for more support that local authorities cannot provide.

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire talked about whether we can control profitability. I used to work in the pharmaceutical industry, in which the Government have for many years had a control on not only prices but profits and have clawed back profits. As a monopoly purchaser of services, the Government can act on behalf of NHS trusts around the country, and they could do something similar for local authorities where needed, whether it is with special schools or private social care providers. I would like to press amendment 42 to a vote.

[Neil O’Brien]

I was quite reassured by the Minister’s thoughtful comments and his clear appreciation of the difficulty and extreme number of obstacles to making this power practicably usable. Kenneth Clark said that he did not know what civilisation was, but he knew it when he saw it, and I think quite a few Members of this House, including those on the Government Benches, have the same feeling about excess profits—we feel that they are too high, but we struggle to say what we think an acceptable level would be. That challenge will not get any easier over time.

As ever, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire is more articulate than I am, and he made the point well that this is not a profit cap but a retrospective clawback mechanism, which is another reason why it will be so hard to use in practice. Unless we are going to get into problems of retrospection and loads of legal action, we will be giving people advance warning, which will give them time to move money around and ensure that things look compliant.

I am keen to move amendment 25 to a vote. I promise that we will make great progress on subsequent clauses; I am not trying to be a dog in the manger. I understand and accept the Minister’s arguments about the things that the Secretary of State would do before commencing such a power—that was reassuring—but there should be a national assessment of the number of available placements. The Minister said that such things happen locally, and that someone could tot them up; I hope the Government will do that. It would be a powerful thing for the Minister to do and would give him huge clout in driving this agenda forward, so I hope he will do it even if the Committee votes against this amendment.

There should be a German word for a bit of data that we think should exist—we look on the internet and think we should be able to find it, but somehow it does not exist. This assessment of what is available out there is an example of that. I am keen to put our amendment to the vote, to make that point for our friends in the other place when they discuss the Bill, but I am reassured by the Minister’s comments.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

My Department will introduce civil monetary penalties to compel children’s care providers to comply with the financial oversight scheme and—if implemented in the future—the profit cap. It is imperative that providers comply with the scheme in order to protect vulnerable children from the disruption to their homes and care that could result from a sudden market exit by the providers of their placements. If providers do not comply, we will tackle that effectively by introducing penalties. Penalties could apply up to the highest level of the organisational structure of a provider that has failed to comply with the scheme.

If a profit cap is introduced in future, clauses 15 and 16 provide for civil monetary penalties for breaches of any profit cap, to be issued at provider level. The Secretary of State will be able to issue monetary penalties for breaches of the cap, and for failure to comply with annual return requirements. Both are essential to allow for the proper administration of the cap—if we need to bring it in in the future.

Furthermore, if providers fail to comply, action may be taken against their registration. The Care Standards Act 2000 is amended to give Ofsted the power to suspend or cancel the registration of a person, in respect of a children’s home or fostering agency, if they have failed to comply with either measure.

Clause 16 sets out the process that both the Secretary of State and Ofsted must follow when issuing civil monetary penalties under provisions in the Bill. It will ensure that any penalties are issued fairly and consistently. It places a duty on the Secretary of State and Ofsted, when issuing a monetary penalty, to serve a notice of intention on the recipient. They must also take into account any representations from the recipient of the notice before a final decision to issue a penalty is made.

The clause sets out that the Secretary of State or Ofsted may issue a monetary penalty of any amount. The only exceptions to that are when the Secretary of State has prescribed in regulations a maximum penalty that may be imposed. Proposed new schedule 1A specifies the maximum amount and sets out the factors that must be considered when determining the amount of the monetary penalty to be issued, ensuring transparency.

To ensure that monetary penalties are paid on time, we will have the ability to charge interest on any unpaid penalty and to recover the unpaid amount, including any interest, as a civil debt. The interest will be charged at the standard rate, as specified in the Judgments Act 1838, but the total amount must not be more than the amount of the penalty. All penalty moneys are to go into the Consolidated Fund to help pay for vital public services. Finally, persons may appeal either the imposition of a penalty or the amount to the first-tier tribunal. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Neil O’Brien]

I will be much briefer, because this is essentially a consequential clause relating to clause 14, but I want to touch on a couple of things.

A further difficulty in enforcing this profit clawback, and understanding what excess profit is, is that even within a single market not all these institutions are doing the same thing. In a funny way, the remarks that the hon. Member for Twickenham made about clause 14 go to that point. We look at the very large unit costs—that is a horrible expression—or the costs per child of care in independent special schools, and we think, “Gosh, these unit costs are so high. Surely we have to do something about this.” The Government and the Opposition are seized of that point—we do not want to spend money that we do not need to spend—but we should sometimes look at the individual cases.

For example, a child in my constituency who has just been put into one of these brilliant institutions—Red Kite, over in Northamptonshire—literally needs constant help just to keep breathing, so we have to be clear about whether these things are really like for like. It is true that that independent special school is a lot more expensive than a mainstream school, but is it really like for like?

As we think about capping profits in this industry, a further complexity is that, depending on the caseload and the child, the profit and risk levels will be different. Within an individual institution, there could be some unbelievably hard-to-place, hard-to-look-after, very difficult and expensive children, alongside other children, so it will not be easy to work out an acceptable level of profit.

Proposed new schedule 1A(6), on the right of appeal against imposition of monetary penalty, further extends the opportunities for people to game the system. First, it is retrospective—it is about clawing money back from people after the fact, which gives them an opportunity to manage their profits so they look like they are compliant—and then there is a right of appeal. I understand why that is in the Bill, but to return to the metaphor about the lack of proper enforcement with regard to illegal working and the lack of information about the fines that are collected, by the time we have tried to claw money back retrospectively and given people the right of appeal, it would be easy for them to say, “This is in the name of my brother. We have collapsed the company. Sorry, we don’t have any money to pay this fine,” so we may not end up with anything at the end of it. Meanwhile, the people who are really behind the scheme have moved on and are doing the same thing down the road.

I want to highlight those points. This clause is consequential on clause 14. If we have clause 14, it makes sense to have clause 15, so we will not oppose it. I want to emphasise again, however, that there are even more dimensions to why it will be difficult to use this measure, so the focus should be on supply.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 15 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

Clause 17 enables information sharing between Ofsted and my Department to ensure the effective functioning of the financial oversight scheme and profit cap regime. Sharing relevant information also supports Ofsted’s functions under part 2 of the Care Standards Act 2000.

For the purposes of a financial oversight scheme, effective information and the sharing agreements that are in place between my Department and Ofsted are crucial, and they will enable us to bring together financial corporate performance and quality indicators about individual providers to inform decision making. This clause does not authorise the processing of data, which would contravene data protection legislation.

[Neil O’Brien]

I have a brief question. I understand what the Minister is trying to do here; the Secretary of State is taking powers to require the Ofsted chief inspector to share information with them in connection with the functions under this part. Can the Minister explain how that differs from the current ability of His Majesty’s chief inspector to share information with the Secretary of State? As the Minister just said, proposed new section 30ZO(8) is clear that it cannot contravene the GDPR legislation anyway, so I am trying to understand what gap this clause is trying to fix.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the shadow Minister for that. Data will be shared to other parties as part of the financial oversight scheme. It is worth saying that the Department will share with local authorities which providers meet the financial oversight conditions and are subject to the financial oversight scheme. That is to support their local sufficiency and contingency planning.

To ensure that commercially sensitive information is kept confidential, we will not share any provider information submitted as part of this scheme with local authorities or the sector. The Department will use this information to make an assessment of financial risk and issue an advance warning notice to local authorities where there is a real possibility that financial risk could lead a provider to cease operating.

Finally, where providers or their corporate owners, as I mentioned earlier, breach the requirements of this scheme, the Department will publish information on civil monetary penalties imposed. That is to be transparent about providers who fail to comply with the scheme.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 17 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18

Use of agency workers for children’s social care work

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

Clause 18, through the introduction of a regulation-making power, will allow the Government to take stronger action to alleviate the significant affordability and stability challenges that have arisen from the increase in the use and cost of agency workers in local authority children’s social care in England. This clause ensures that, while agency workers remain an important part of local authority children’s social care, they do not become a long-term replacement for a permanent, stable workforce.

The clause will allow the Secretary of State to introduce regulations on the use of agency workers in English local authority children’s social care services. It will strengthen the existing regulatory framework for the use of agency social workers in local authority children’s social care services, which is currently set out in statutory guidance. It will also extend the framework beyond the social workers to the wider local authority children’s social care workforce, such as agency workers delivering targeted early intervention or family help.

We remain committed to working in partnership with stakeholders across the children’s social care system, including agencies, to ensure that the proposals implemented are proportionate and effective. The clause provides a duty to consult ahead of introducing regulations.

Regulations will make it clear to local authorities, the recruitment sector and agency workers what they should expect from each other. The consistency that that brings to the market will benefit all parties. Reducing local authority spend on agency workers will allow local authorities to invest more in services supporting children and families and enhance the offer to permanent employees. I hope that the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Neil O’Brien]

We have not tabled an amendment to clause 18, but I have a lot of questions similar to those we have been asking about attempts to introduce profit capping for children’s care homes.

The Government clearly have two quite different hopes for this measure. On the one hand, the explanatory notes on the Bill say that strengthening the regulatory framework for the use of agency workers within local authority children’s social care services will improve the stability and quality of the agency workforce. That is the first hope. However, the notes also say that reducing local authority spend on agency workers will allow local authorities to invest more in services supporting children and families and enhance the offer to permanent employees. Those are two quite different objectives in different clauses of the Bill.

The last Government were taking steps to increase the number of people in social work. Those steps included the “step up to social work” scheme and the creation of social work apprenticeships, as well as advertising some of the amazing things that people can do and be part of as social workers. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to our social workers. They are amazing people. Theirs is a tough job, but people feel an enormous sense of pride in what they do, and when they look back on their careers they can reflect that they have helped a lot of people. It is an amazing profession.

According to the most recent DFE statistics, there were over 33,000 full-time social workers in post in 2023. That is 4,600 more than in 2017, or a 16% increase. The caseload per full-time equivalent worker had dropped from 17.7 cases to 16, the lowest in the series. We can say that that number is still too high, but it has at least been going in the right direction during my time in Parliament. Just under one in five of the full-time equivalents is an agency worker, and the agency share has gone up, but sometimes people assume that it has gone up more than it has. In fact, from 2017 to now, it has gone up from about 19% to just under 22%. That is an increase, but we must keep these things in perspective. As with children’s homes, issues with agency workers are probably more likely to be resolved by addressing issues of supply and career progression, rather than attempting to freeze or cap prices without addressing supply. Crudely trying to cap prices runs the risk of increasing vacancies in social work teams, lengthening lead times for families or at-risk children to get help, and putting more pressure on all the other staff.

When we look at the map, we see that not all local authorities are in the same position, facing the same costs, market forces and challenges. There are huge variations in the share of agency staff, even within regions, and in some regions, such as London, the use of agency staff is consistently higher. Applying the same rules, caps or limits to places facing totally different situations would be risky. That is why the last Government were talking about encouraging authorities in an area to come together on a voluntary basis to agree things, but were not forcing the pace or applying a hard national cap on a one-size-fits-all basis. Sometimes when we look at the map, we can see what we think is the rationale—for example, Trafford is more expensive than Manchester. Trafford is quite expensive, but then we see other parts of the country where the issues are not connected to the costs. Why are Bradford and Leeds so different? Without understanding the story, it is pretty dangerous to move to a one-size-fits-all solution.

Instead of alleviating significant workforce affordability pressures, which the explanatory notes say is the aim in the clause, a one-size-fits-all regulation could make things worse. Interestingly, a poll found that only 16% of agency workers agreed with the idea of national rules, which suggests that many are choosing to work in this way. In other fields we sometimes want to regulate agency staff for the good of the staff, or because we are worried that they are being exploited. In this case, however, we should be clear that they are overwhelmingly not looking for new national rules—although it is worth saying that the same poll shows that local authority staff take a different view. We should be trying to understand why that is the case.

I imagine that both the flexibility and the wider conditions are among the reasons people want to work as agency staff, and they are far from alone in that. Across almost every public service, in each new generation there is a much higher level of demand for flexible working—being able to work at the times and in the places that people see fit. That is, in one sense, a good thing. The workforce is more female, for example. We can understand why people want it. On the other hand, it poses a challenge for public services to adapt and manage.

As I said, the clause has a dual goal, which the Government sets out in the notes. One part of it is potentially capping pay rates or numbers. The other part of it is to improve stability, so that there are better relationships and quality is higher. Proposed new section 32A(4), on page 35 of the Bill, lists the reasons why Government can act under the clause. Paragraphs (a) and (b) are about quality; they are about agency workers’ specified requirements, such as qualifications. Paragraph (b) is also about how they are managed, and it is very open ended. Paragraph (c) then says,

“including the amounts which may be paid under such arrangements”.

I see no limit—although the Minister may tell me that there is one—on what the Government can do under that paragraph. Might they be able to set individual limits for individual local authorities? I see no obstacle to them doing that; it is a very strong power. If Minister were so inclined—I am sure that none is—they could micromanage the whole situation and try to run it from the centre.

I am interested to hear the Ministers’ views on the Government’s intent. How plausible do they think using those powers is, and what do they think are the obstacles to fixing the problem by directly regulating against it, rather than by improving supply overall?

We are, in a sense, again being asked for a blank cheque in so far as everything is in regulations. We do not have the promised impact assessment, although of course there is a commitment to engage extensively with the sector before introducing secondary legislation. There will be public consultation, and the regulations will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but as the Minister knows, that means they cannot be amended, so we will have no steer over them. It is a very strong power to heavily manage almost every aspect of the use of agency workers. There is, more or less, nothing that the Government cannot do under subsection (4).

Rather than asking lots of specific questions, I want to get a general sense from Ministers of how they feel about that. A lot of people say, “There are too many agency staff.” It is not obvious to me that there has been a ballistic growth in their numbers, or that there is a “right level”, which we are not at. I said that the level is now about a fifth; should it be what it was in 2017? Was that the right level, or was it the level it was in 2010 or 1997? Quite often, we hear people say that it is terrible that there are so many agency staff, but what is the right proportion? It is probably not zero.

The power being given is big, sweeping and general, and I do not have a firm sense from Ministers of what they want to do with it or when they will know what they want to do with it. When I listen to some people in this debate—not necessarily Ministers—I am struck by the naiveté of Ministers riding in and saying, “Right, you’re banned from having any agency workers,” or, “You’re all capped at a maximum of x per day or x per hour,” and thinking that that will not cause problems. In a country like England, with all our divergences, the Government would quickly get into big trouble if they did those things. I do not think Ministers are so unwise.

I would like to get the Minister’s response to the concerns I have raised about the limits of action on pay. I am less worried about whether agency workers should all have qualifications; we should do everything we can to drive up continuous learning and professional development. That is all good stuff. I do not have a big problem with making agency workers more like local authority workers and making them part of the team. What I am more wary about is proposed new section 32A (4)(c), which seems to suggest that the Government intend to attack profiteering. I would be interested in the Minister’s response to those concerns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank both hon. Members for their probing of the clause. No amendment has been tabled, and there seems to be general agreement that the principle is right. Over-reliance on agency workers contributes to workforce instability, which has implications for both the workforce and the children it is there to serve. It also puts pressure on local authority budgets. I thank both hon. Members for recognising the challenging but hugely valuable work of social workers, which is often unrecognised and un-thanked. It is good that we take the opportunity to put on record our collective gratitude to them for the difficult work that they do.

Many local authorities are already demonstrating success in transitioning agency workers into their permanent workforces. People who work in social care need the right environment so that they can thrive, personally and professionally. We recognise that regulation alone is not the answer, but the Government are supporting local authorities to attract and retain children’s social workers and provide positive working environments for all who work in children’s social care, because ultimately children will benefit.

Local authorities will still be able to use agency workers if doing so is the most appropriate resourcing option and in line with the regulatory framework, but it is important to reduce local authority spend on agency staff and to allow local authorities to reinvest in the permanent children’s social care workforce. Statutory guidance that has already been issued on this matter has allowed the Government to act quickly to introduce a new framework. The framework focuses on social workers, but other Government Departments are working on the same issue.

Guidance can be departed from in certain circumstances, so introducing regulations on the use of agency workers is appropriate and proportionate. It is important that we strengthen the regulatory framework on the use of agency workers in children’s social care to ensure that it is legally binding, so that we bring greater transparency and accountability to the use of agency workers, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire suggested. We will continuously consider the evidence, ensuring that we take an informed approach to those regulations.

There is a statutory duty to consult before introducing regulations. We commit to working in partnership with stakeholders across children’s social care, ensuring that any proposals that we introduce are proportionate and effective. We are also working with local authorities and regions on developing price caps. We will look at the data later this year, before introducing those changes, and the raised regulations will be subject to consultation and the affirmative procedure. With those comments and queries responded to, I hope that Members feel that they can support the clause.

[Neil O’Brien]

I think the Minister answered this question when she said that, in respect of caps, she was working on a regional basis, but does the provision give the Government the power to cap on any basis, including at a local authority level? The Government could say that the cap is x in Westminster and y in County Durham—is my understanding correct?

[Catherine McKinnell]

As is becoming more evident as the Committee progresses, the hon. Member is very focused on the detail. Obviously, that is something that we will work through as part of our development of the statutory regulations. We will consider developing price caps on a regional basis, but we will look at the evidence and consult as well. That is important, because I think we all agree in principle on the provision, and we will work hard and consult to ensure that we get it right.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 18 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19

Ill-treatment or wilful neglect: children aged 16 and 17

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Clause 19 amends sections 20, 21 and 25 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015. That Act protects over-18s in regulated social care settings and everyone provided with certain healthcare from ill treatment and wilful neglect, and the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 protects all under-16s from cruelty, so if someone is under 16 or over 18 there is protection in place to prosecute perpetrators of abuse. However, there is a gap that means that carers or care providers involved in the wilful neglect of 16 and 17-year-olds in regulated children’s social care settings or youth detention accommodation cannot be prosecuted. We are therefore expanding the 2015 Act so that the offence includes protections for 16 and 17-years-olds.

The change means that where there has been ill treatment or wilful neglect by those providing care or support in regulated establishments, the law will support the relevant authorities in prosecuting the individuals and providers involved. I am sure we all want the right legal protections to be in place for all children, and for the law to support action being taken against those involved in abuse or neglect. I hope the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Neil O’Brien]

We support clause 19, which closes an important gap in the law regarding the ill treatment and neglect of 16 and 17-year-olds. I have some specific questions. Have the Government considered making the ill treatment or wilful neglect of a child aged 16 or 17 in a children’s home or other regulated setting, as set out in the Bill, an aggravating factor in the sentencing of those cases? The low level of the terms “ill treatment” and “wilful neglect” sits uncomfortably beside the context, reality and vulnerability of those children. Will the Government think about the criminal justice side of that?

My second question is about children who are held on remand in the youth estate. Members who have read my Substack will know that, both under the last Government and this one, I have complained a lot about the growth in the remand population in the adult and youth estates, and the court delays that drive that. A lot of children now in the youth estate are held on remand—about 40%—so can the Minister confirm that these provisions will apply to children who are held on remand in youth detention accommodation, and not just to those who have been sentenced? Those on remand are there temporarily, and as we fix one important hole in the law, I want to check whether we need to fix another one, or whether it is already covered. I am happy if the Minister wants to write to us on that point because it is quite detailed.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support for the clause. To answer his second question, the change will affect regulated establishments in children’s social care, including youth detention accommodation. It will therefore cover children’s homes, residential family centres, accommodation where holiday schemes for disabled children are provided, and supported accommodation settings. There are other measures already in place to protect all children, including 16 to 17-year-olds, against abuse and neglect within children’s social care settings and youth detention accommodation. This clause is specifically intended to address the current legal gap.

[Neil O’Brien]

I think the most natural reading is that those children should be covered, because they are in the YOIs. I just wondered whether there was a potential issue because they are not permanently there; they are just on remand. I wonder whether the Minister could check with her officials to ensure that we are not missing an opportunity.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will double-check on the hon. Gentleman’s behalf, but my understanding is that they will be covered, given that they come within the remit of youth detention accommodation. I will certainly convey his point about wilful neglect being an aggravating factor within the criminal justice system as a query to the Ministry of Justice, as it may be worth considering with the change being brought through in this education legislation. With that, I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 19 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

Employment of children in England

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

As the Minister says, the clause essentially centralises and harmonises differences in rules on children’s employment, which are currently set partly at the local level. As a localist, I start with a small degree of nervousness, in so far as we are taking away a local authority power. We have done that an awful lot over the last 40 years.

I do not have a great objection to this measure, because in general it is a liberalisation overall. The notes provided by the Library are quite good, in so far as they talk about the extensions in different ways that this will bring about in most local authorities. I do have one slight nervousness, though, from a practical rather than a philosophical point of view. When we replace a complicated patchwork quilt and a lot of variation with a single national rule, we must check that every place is clear about the impact. To pick a random example used in the Library briefing, the byelaws of Birmingham city council do not include the line allowing 13-year-olds to work on car washing by hand in a private residential setting that is present in Richmond upon Thames and in the model byelaws.

I do not know whether the Government have a spreadsheet or an assessment somewhere detailing the current differences between the laws in all the different places. I hope that they do, because although in general it sounds like we are harmonising all these things across the country in a way that is liberalising, by having more times when young people and children can work, in some cases there might be a restriction, and it would not be a small thing for anyone caught by that restriction to be found breaking the law on the employment of children.

Although ignorance of the law is no defence, one might feel that it perhaps should be where people have been happily working away on the basis of their local authority’s byelaws for some time, when suddenly, without them clocking it—because they do not read Hansard every day—the law changes and they can no longer do what they were doing before. Those people could easily be caught out, as the rules change and we move from a patchwork quilt to a single national standard.

As I say, I have some philosophical questions about the loss of local authority autonomy. However, because the direction of travel overall seems to be more liberalising than not, I do not think that we will oppose the clause, although I would ask the Minister to commit to producing that assessment of what the rules are now, compared with what they will be, which might be a sensible thing to do purely from the point of view of any legal challenge.

The Minister might stand up and say, “We’ve already done that—obviously,” but if that has not happened already, will she commit to doing it, so that we are super-clear for individual local authorities about how the rules will be changing? Such a document or spreadsheet would be of benefit not just to those of us discussing these things nationally, but to the local authorities—the laws are changing in their areas—and to the actual employers of young people, so that they are not caught out by some of the changes and, indeed, are potentially alerted to the new opportunities that the more liberalising aspects of the clause will bring about.

It is a good thing for young people to be in employment at an early age—some of the best jobs I have ever had were when I was a young person working on a farm. That was an absolutely fantastic experience. We want young people to be able to get on with their lives, not to be held back. We are generally supportive of the liberalising aspects of the clause, but we have that nagging doubt.

We strongly encourage the Minister to do that work—indeed, we hope she will commit to doing it—on how the move from a patchwork quilt to a single set of national rules will affect each local authority, so that someone has done the work, not least for the legal protection of the Minister herself, but for the legal protection of those on the ground who will be affected.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Considering the level of agreement on this provision, there is a significant amount of interest and questions around it. It might help if I clarify that currently a child can work for a maximum of only two hours on a Sunday and up to 7 pm at night, which restricts employment opportunities. It may not make business sense to employ a child who is able to work only a very short shift. We spoke with children while developing this policy, and they were pretty universally of the view that they would like to have more flexibility in when they can work, not necessarily in the amount that they wish to work. Clause 20 will not change the overall number of hours that a child can work, but it will give children much greater flexibility to maximise the opportunities that hopefully will become available to them as this area becomes more clearly set out as part of the legislation.

Employers and sector bodies have set out the difficulties in being able to offer employment to a child either on a normal trading day or when they experience peak demand when the child has worked their requisite two hours. That often closes down opportunities that children could easily have had and would have enjoyed having. Businesses would appreciate having those children as part of their team, but the restrictions in the current arrangements often make that difficult to accommodate.

[Neil O’Brien]

I have a question about babysitters, which are one of the hardest cases here. This question is as much about the existing law as it is about the proposed change in the cut-off from 7 pm to 8 pm. Are people who employ babysitters after 7 pm or 8 pm committing a criminal offence under the clause?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I do not believe that people register with their local authority to ask someone under the age of 16 who they know to babysit in their home. My understanding, therefore, is that these regulations would not apply in those circumstances.

To explain another issue that these measures are intended to fix, the vast majority of local authorities simply follow the byelaw model, so they are already in place. However, some local authorities have additional restrictions in their rules for employing children. That has led to some local authorities, which may be geographically located directly next door to each other, having different restrictions. For example, one local authority might decide to add a role to the restricted employment list, but the other might not. That leaves children, parents and businesses, which do not always operate within local authority boundaries, somewhat confused. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire pointed out, that can put employers off employing children, even where it might be to the benefit of both that these opportunities are available.

Replacing the power for local authorities to make byelaws with the power for the Secretary of State to make these regulations will ensure fair outcomes for all children right across England. That means that a child, their parent or a business can know what work can be undertaken, and when and by whom, wherever they live in England. National employers will also hopefully be encouraged to employ children who are looking for these opportunities, as they will not be put off by inconsistencies around the country that create bureaucratic obstacles to opportunities. That will provide much-needed employment for businesses across the country. I hope that I have responded to the majority of concerns about this largely—I certainly get the impression—uncontested clause.

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

It would, however, appear that the shadow Minister has another query.

[Neil O’Brien]

I thank the Minister for her patience. Will the Government undertake to have an authority-by-authority assessment of what the patchwork quilt looks like now? For everyone’s ease and benefit, what will the changes mean for those who are not just following the model byelaws, because they are maybe different in each different place? Is the Minister happy to at least go away and have a look at that?

[Catherine McKinnell]

As part of the work to create the draft legislation that we are debating, an assessment of local authorities was undertaken. That assessment has not changed the view that a more consistent approach across the country would be beneficial to children, employers and their families—indeed, it threw up the fact that the vast majority of local authorities do follow the current byelaw framework. This clause not only creates a nationally consistent approach; it creates a better and more flexible approach for children, which will hopefully unlock opportunity for them to take their first steps on the employment ladder.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fifth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

Provision of advice and other support

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 23, in clause 7, page 12, line 13, at end insert —

“(3A) Where staying close support is provided, it must be provided with due regard to the wishes of the relevant person and a record must be kept of that person’s wishes.”

This amendment would require local authorities to take account of the wishes of the relevant young person when providing staying close support, and keep a record of those wishes.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 40, in clause 7, page 12, line 22, at end insert—

“(vi) financial support;

(vii) financial literacy”

Amendment 41, in clause 7, page 12, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) the provision of supported lodgings, where the young person and local authority deem appropriate.”

Clause stand part.

[Neil O'Brien]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we return to our work on the Bill with clause 7, I want to say that it is still a bit disappointing that we have been through Second Reading, and here we are on the third day of Committee, and we still do not have the impact assessment for the Bill, which could potentially answer some of the questions that we will be raising today. I know the Ministers want to do the right thing in trying to get it out of the relevant committee and published, and I hope they can succeed in doing that pretty soon.

On clause 7, no reasonable person would argue that a young person leaving care does not require some support to live independently. Young people who have not been in care often require years of support to live independently, and they are less likely to be doing so away from home and will be in less difficult circumstances. Again, the Opposition support the Government’s objectives in this clause to provide staying close support, but we have some questions about how it is to work in practice.

First, the Bill gives discretion to the local authority on whether this support is in the best interests of a young person’s welfare. Surely the assumption should be that the support is offered, and it should be the exception to withhold it. One advantage in having the onus turned round would be that the local authority would have to record and explain decisions not to offer that kind of support. What sort of criteria are the local authorities supposed to use to make those choices, and will that be consistent across the country?

Secondly, there is also a question about the process for identifying the person who is to help the young person. The Department’s policy summary quite rightly talks about identifying a “trusted person”, which is obviously very important to this kind of young person. By definition, some young people in care have pretty good reasons not to trust adults around them, so how are local authorities to go about identifying such a “trusted person”? Thirdly, and this is a small point, will there be digital options to support young people? These days, that is clearly the most frequent method that young people use to get information, particularly sensitive information. It gives young people a choice of how they find their information, and there is potentially an opportunity for some good practice here in setting up a good way of communicating with their trusted person.

That leads me to a wider point. As we have gone through this Bill, and we will continue to make this point, there is a risk that local authorities, when confronted with these new duties, will obey the letter of the law, but will they really fulfil the spirit and good intent of Ministers in passing the Bill? Can the Minister be clear that this is not supposed to be just another signposting service? As young people leave care, they need personal advocates who can help them articulate their needs with other agencies, not a phone number or email address to contact. They do not really need more leaflets; they need a human being who can be trustworthy and provide practical help and advice. Signposting can quickly turn into a doom-loop dead end and no help. How does the Minister also envisage the involvement of local charities, some of whom will have had quite long-term links with the young person in care, and how will that be funded?

I will come on to this point on other amendment, but I ask here what the Minister makes of the call from the Our Wellbeing, Our Voice coalition for a national wellbeing measurement of care leavers. That would obviously support some of those points.

Does the Government plan to accept the recommendation of the Family Rights Group to offer lifelong links to all care leavers to help them have better relationships with those that they care about? Again, is there an opportunity here? Many constituency MPs will know people who have been in care and then become carers. There is this cycle—I know several people like this, and I will talk about one of them later on today. If we are getting into the business of continuing relationships after leaving care, which is a good thing, I wonder whether that can become something bigger—a lifelong connection, for those who want it, obviously, as a way of getting much-needed carers to stay in the system.

There is a risk that these measures are all very local authority-focused rather than focused on the needs of the young person. Amendment 23 would ensure that the voice of the child is heard and that we have the information that we need to allow for continuous improvement. It is very light touch. Keeping a record of the person’s wishes would help to protect against the loss of knowledge when personnel change. If things are written down, it is easier for a new person to come in and pick up and understand a bit about what that young person has said they want. In the longer term, it also provides a resource for learning and performance improvement. I talked in the previous session about kaizen and continuous improvement. The amendment is designed to support that, to improve continuity and to make sure that the voice of the young people for whom this very sensible form of care is to be provided is heard.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I rise to support clause 8 stand part. [Interruption.] Sorry, my mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in this matter. We will produce the statutory guidance to make all this absolutely clear.

Before I come to clause 7 stand part, I want to respond to an additional question from the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston that I did not answer earlier. He asked about digital options and, as someone standing here using an iPad, I recognise the importance of that, particularly for young people. The local authorities already work with a range of digital options to connect with their care leavers, and we would certainly expect that to continue, and expect good practice to continue being developed and to be set out in the statutory guidance.

Turning to clause stand part, clause 7 requires each local authority to consider whether the welfare of former relevant children up to the age of 25 requires staying close support. Where this support is identified as being required, the authority must provide staying close support of whatever kind the authority considers appropriate, having regard to the extent to which that person’s welfare requires it.

Staying close support is to be provided for the purpose of helping the young person to find and keep suitable accommodation and to access services relating to health and wellbeing, relationships, education and training, employment and participating in society. This support can take the form of the provision of advice, information and representation, and aims to help to build the confidence and skills that care leavers need to be able to live independently.

The new duties placed on local authorities by this clause will not operate in isolation. They will be part of the existing legislative framework, which sets out the duties that every local authority already owes to its former children in care aged 18 to 24. This clause enhances and expands the arrangements for those children by supporting them to find long-term stable accommodation and access to essential wraparound services. The new statutory guidance will set out what the new requirements mean for local authorities and will draw on established good practice—for example, the role of a trusted person to offer practical and emotional support to care leavers.

On that basis, I hope I can rely on the Committee’s support for clause 7.

[Neil O’Brien]

I would like to push amendment 23 to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

There will be a Minister from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. That area will form part of the discussions, I am sure, as the purpose of the group is to give the best chance to care leavers—this very vulnerable group of young people—and ensure that we as a Government are working collaboratively to make that effective.

We recognise how important it is that care leavers have clear information about the help and support they are entitled to, both from their local authority and central Government Department. We are therefore reviewing our published information to ensure that it is accessible and clear and that care leavers can quickly and easily understand and access all the support they are entitled to. Once that review has concluded, we will consider how best to publish this information. Therefore, I ask for the new clause to be withdrawn and urge the Committee to support clause 8.

[Neil O’Brien]

This is a good and sensible clause, and the Opposition support its inclusion in the Bill. I would note that although all these clauses are good, they come with an administrative cost.

We have already discussed the importance of ensuring that the measures are properly funded, but I want to press the Minister for a few more insights on clause 8. There is a list of details about the local offer—that it must be published, must anticipate the needs of care leavers—and it refers to how they will co-operate with housing authorities and provide accommodation for those under 25. This is all good stuff.

The discussion that we have just had prefigured the question that I wanted to ask, which is about co-operation with national bodies. The clause is quite focused on co-operation between local bodies and drawing up a clear offer. That is a good thing—although, obviously, some of those housing associations are quite national bodies these days.

In the “Keeping children safe, helping families thrive” policy paper published a while back, the Government set out an intention to extend corporate parenting responsibilities to Government Departments and other public bodies, with a list of corporate parents named in legislation following agreement from other Government Departments. When we were in government, we also said that we intended to legislate to extend corporate parenting responsibilities more broadly, so I wondered about that connection up to the national level. We have already had one excellent and very canny policy idea from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire about setting the default for care leavers when it comes to how their housing payments are made. The Minister raised a good point about bursaries and making sure that care leavers are clear about what is available to them on that front. However, there is a whole host of other opportunities to write in to some of these—

[Damian Hinds]

Will my hon. Friend also comment on the particular situation of those young people from care who go on to university? Of course, come the holidays the vast majority of people in higher education go home, but the situation is very different for those who have been in care. Some enlightened universities—including the University of Winchester, in my own county—do very good work in this regard, but will he expand a little on how those young people in higher education can be supported with the offer?

[Neil O’Brien]

That excellent point is another example of exactly what we are talking about. In one sense, I regret not having an amendment that would insert a specific paragraph about the local offer from national organisations. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that the Minister is very interested in this question and is pursuing it. Anyway, there may even be scope to write that into the Bill as it goes through the Lords.

The DFE’s explanatory notes for the Bill say that, although the housing and children’s services departments are encouraged in guidance—in part 7 of the Children Act 1989, I think—to work together to achieve the common aim of planning and providing appropriate accommodation and support for care leavers, that is not happening consistently in practice; the Minister alluded to that.

My question to the Minister is: what do we know from current practice about where that does not happen and why not? It seems obvious, and something that every well-intentioned social worker—every person who works with care leavers—would want to do. What does the good model of effective provision of that support look like? Are there local authorities that are the best cases of that?

Other than providing the administrative and legislative hook for better gripping of this issue, I do not know whether the Minister has a specific plan to do anything else to try to achieve it more consistently—given that, of all the different things that one wants to join up for the care leaver, the provision of a safe place to live and a stable housing arrangements is probably No.1. Is anything more being done? Does the Minister have thoughts about how that can be done best and where it is done best? Where it has not been done as well as we would hope, why is that?

[Darren Paffey]

I appreciate your patience, Mr Stringer—this is not the first time I have stumbled over Committee procedure and no doubt it will not be the last. I welcome the Minister’s comments and the inclusion of clause 8, which I strongly support. I want to address the sentiment of new clause 40 as well.

The extension of the requirements around accommodation, extending the Children and Social Work Act 2017, requires councils to publish that local offer. That is crucial. Many of us have served in local government; it is at that local level that these crucial services, which can often make or break opportunities for care leavers, are delivered. The clause also takes steps towards making good on the Prime Minister’s commitment to guarantee care leavers a place to live.

We would all recognise, from the context of our own constituencies, that the barriers faced by care-experienced young people are numerous. The likelihood that good outcomes in life will be harder for them to achieve is simply a fact. It is absolutely right to bolster the local offer, as clause 8 seeks to do. The new provisions will further strengthen what many local authorities, including my own in Southampton, have begun to do over a number of years. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire suggested, there are measures of good practice under local councils that we now ought to be bringing into this standardisation of the offer.

In terms of a national offer, the new clause certainly has its merits and it is something good to aim for. I had the opportunity to speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who is responsible for children and families and whose remit this issue comes under. She has agreed to meet me to explore it further, but as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has already said, there is a cross-ministerial group. I really welcome the work that it is doing to take these measures forward, because building on the existing measures, which strengthen that national focus, is crucial. It says to young people with care experience that they matter.

I have worked very closely with young people in care over the years, and I know that too many of them feel let down by the systems there to protect them. This is about showing that the Government get what it is like for them, are focused on acting for their good and doing so from the very top. Having that national focus goes a long way towards making those people’s journey to adulthood stronger and as smooth as possible and towards ensuring that they are fully supported to thrive.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I look forward to working through the measures in this landmark Bill with all Members, as has been the spirit so far.

The children’s social care market is not working effectively. The Competition and Markets Authority and the independent review of children’s social care recommended a regional approach to planning and commissioning children’s care places. My Department will support local authorities to increase the number of regional care co-operatives over time. As Members will have noted, the clause refers to those as “regional co-operation arrangements”. As a last resort, the legislation will give the Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to establish regional co-operation arrangements.

Where a direction is in place, regions will be required to analyse future accommodation needs for children, publish sufficiency strategies, commission care places for children, recruit and support foster parents, and develop or facilitate the development of new provision to accommodate children. We expect regional care co-operatives to gain economies of scale and to harness the collective buying power of individual local authorities. I hope that the Committee will agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Neil O’Brien]

Regional co-operation is something that the previous Government were extremely enthusiastic about and worked to build up, so the Minister will not be surprised to hear that we support the clause. The previous Government’s “Stable Homes, Built on Love” policy paper said that the Government would work with local authorities to test the use of regional care co-operatives—regional groupings of authorities to plan, commission and deliver care places—in two areas. Those two pathfinders would trial an approach within the legal framework, with a view to rolling it out nationally following evaluation as soon as parliamentary time allowed. Were we in office, I suspect that we would be very much considering the same clause. This Government have announced that those two pathfinders are going ahead, in Greater Manchester and the south-east, from this summer.

When we consulted about the idea—it is a good idea —there was a lot of support, but there were also a lot of concerns and questions about the size of the groups, the risk that they would be too removed from the child, and the loss of relationships with small providers in particular. As the Minister said, this is a recommendation from previous work, including from the independent review of children’s social care, which we commissioned. Obviously, we hope that such groups will be useful in providing local authorities with greater purchasing power and more options when they are securing accommodation for children in care, but we think it is important to be clear about the objectives to avoid any unintended consequences. I have come to think that, often, it is when we all agree that we are doing a good thing that we should ask ourselves the difficult questions to ensure that we are not making a mistake.

The key issue in the “children’s home market”—I put that in scare quotes, because I hesitate to use the phrase in the current context—is a lack of supply, which leads to children being placed far away from their roots and support networks in accommodation that does not always match their care plan. We then see children going missing and having repeated placement moves. I wonder whether the Minister will put on record in Committee the aims for the regional care co-operatives, other than purchasing power, and how they will address the other issues.

Will the Minister respond to some specific issues raised in our consultation? One issue is that it is harder for smaller providers and specialist charities, which are obviously part of the offer for children in care at the moment, to engage with regional care co-operatives. What does he think about that risk and what does he plan to do about it?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Again, as hon. Members have said, we support this approach and it is the approach that we were taking. It is also true that when everybody agrees on something, it is usually the point of most danger for making bad law. It is important to have these Committee proceedings and proper scrutiny.

I was personally never keen on the name of regional co-operatives, although I do not think the word “co-operative” actually appears in the Bill. We can, of course, have co-operation without having a co-operative. This legislation is actually about regional co-operation arrangements.

There are three different types of potential co-operation arrangement: first, for strategic accommodation functions to be carried out jointly between two different local authorities; secondly, for one to carry out the duties on behalf of all; and thirdly, for a corporate body, effectively a separate organisation, to be created to do that. I imagine that Government Members will have different views depending on which of those three forms the arrangements take. Will the Minister say which of those he expects to be most common? As well as the pilots, there have no doubt already been formal and informal conversations with local authority leaders in children’s services in many different areas.

I am keen to know how this arrangement is different from some arrangements that may already take place. For example, the tri-borough children’s services arrangement in London—I will try and get this right—between Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham. Presumably, some of those functions are administered in common there, so how will this be different?

[Neil O’Brien]

I probably should have asked the Minister about scale. In the two pilots, we have Greater Manchester, which is just under 3 million people, and the south-east, which is roughly 3 million people. I do not know what the Government’s expectations about scale are and whether they would continue to support something like the tri-borough arrangement, which is obviously much smaller.

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a very apt point. Where we end up on that continuum of scale depends on what we are going after most. Of course, we want all those things. For purchasing power, a bigger scale is better, but for close and easy working relationships, a smaller scale is sometimes better. When we are talking about children, and the placement of vulnerable children, that may well push us towards the smaller end of the scale.

Perhaps it is possible to perform different functions at different levels, with some functions still being performed by the individual local authority. Even then, as my hon. Friend often rightly says, there is an enormous difference in scale between London local authorities, which are actually quite small even though they are in our largest city, and Birmingham, which is one enormous authority. It might be argued that doing some things at a sub-local authority level makes sense in a very large local authority area, but as I say, it might be possible to do some things as the single local authority, some things at a larger level, and some things—presumably principally in terms of purchasing leverage—on a wider scale again.

If regional co-operation arrangements are not materially different in practice from something that already exists in co-operation between local authorities, even if that is on a smaller scale than what is envisaged, is legislation actually necessary? If it is not, we probably should not legislate. I would like to understand a bit more about the legislative basis that is currently missing.

Finally, the Bill sets out that the Secretary of State may add to the definition of the strategic accommodation functions that we have listed in proposed new section 22J(3) of Children Act 1989. What type of additional functions does the Minister have in mind?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

My apologies. I did know that, but I was trying to be impressive by remembering the hon. Lady’s constituency and I got it badly wrong.

On the hon. Lady’s point about where placements should be, local authorities will continue to have the same statutory duties to find the most appropriate place for looked-after children, including that they should live near home, so far as is reasonably applicable. Regional care co-operatives will assist local authorities with these duties. Placement shortage is a key driver of children being placed in homes far from where they live; regional care co-operatives should improve that by increasing local and regional sufficiency, making more places available locally for children who need them.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister confirm that—as I think is the case—the Government would use their powers under the clause to impose regional co-operation agreements only as a last resort, and that we would not push this on everybody who does not want it?

[Stephen Morgan]

The shadow Minister is absolutely correct. We want to work collaboratively with local authorities in rolling this out. We will not force local authorities to do so. I thank him for enabling me to make that clear.

Question put.

[The Chair]

I have put the Question. I am sorry, but you have missed the opportunity.

Question agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 24, in clause 10, page 16, line 39, at end insert —

“(8A) After subsection (9) insert —

‘(10) Where a child is kept in secure accommodation under this section, the relevant local authority has a duty to provide therapeutic treatment for the child.’”

This amendment would place a duty on local authorities to provide treatment for children in secure accommodation.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

We have come to a particularly serious clause—not that the other clauses are not serious, but the use of deprivation of liberty orders for children is always deeply troubling, as is the rise in the number of children who are subject to them. I share the wish of the Children’s Commissioner to see an end to this practice and an end to the use of unregistered provision.

We have seen an increase in the number of young children—including two aged seven last year and 200 under 13—given deprivation of liberty orders. There is nothing in the Bill to differentiate by the child’s age or stage. What consideration has the Minister given to that point? There is something about the use of the orders on very young children that is particularly striking.

When a young child goes into secure accommodation, the Secretary of State has to sign it off, but no sign-off is required from the Secretary of State on deprivation of liberty orders. Why not? The Government are keen on consistency elsewhere in the Bill. Will they bring the same consistency to this clause?

More broadly, do we not need greater clarity on the mechanism for restricting children’s liberty outside a secure institution? I am sure that Members of the other place will be very interested in that question. As the Children’s Commissioner has written, some of the children concerned have physical and learning disabilities, and many are at risk of criminal or sexual exploitation or both. Will the Minister act on the Children’s Commissioner’s recommendation and introduce a proper legal framework and guidance? We believe that much more clarity is needed in the Bill on therapeutic care for those who are under a deprivation of liberty order. Historically, there has been a lot of focus on containment. This amendment is, I suppose, our legislative prod to take the opportunity to think about what therapeutic help a child needs and how to deliver it.

--- Later in debate ---

We anticipate that this measure will reduce the use of deprivation of liberty orders applied for under the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction and ensure that children benefit from the protections afforded by a statutory scheme, with a framework of clear safeguards and mandatory review points, to ensure that no child is deprived of their liberty longer than necessary. Additionally, this change will signal to local authorities, other key sector partners and providers of children’s residential provision Parliament’s endorsement of and commitment to these placement options, supporting them to grow and reducing dependency on poor-quality, expensive, unregistered placements. This will ensure that some of the most vulnerable children are kept safe and given the support to get on well in life, improving their lived experience by ensuring that there is appropriate support, including community links, health access and so on, to assist them to develop to their full potential.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am grateful to the Minister for his informative speech, but can I press him to respond to the specific points made by CAFCASS and the Children’s Commissioner? The Minister is alluding to some of them as he goes along. The first is about requiring explicit Secretary of State approval beforehand. The second is about specifying the frequency of review, particularly for younger children. The third is about having an automatic requirement for children’s protection plans as the child comes out. The fourth, which the Minister has alluded to, is about them being put into illegal settings, and whether something legislative should be done at this point to stop that from happening at all.

[Stephen Morgan]

I am coming to the end of my speech and hope to answer the points that the Opposition spokesperson made. I will certainly take away the issues that he raised.

I thank all Members for their contributions and questions on this very important matter. On consistency, the views of the Children’s Commissioner and age, I know that this point was raised in the other place only yesterday by a former Minister, and I am grateful for that. It is worth saying here, too, that the child rights impact assessment is informing our work on the Bill. I give the shadow Minister the assurance today that I will take on board these comments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Is the child rights impact assessment for the Bill published so that we can see it?

[Stephen Morgan]

There is no legal obligation for England to publish that assessment, but we are certainly using it to inform our work on the Bill.

[Neil O’Brien]

I think Ministers have said in previous sittings that it will be published during the process of scrutiny, along with the impact assessment. Is that still the case?

[Stephen Morgan]

I am referring to the conducted children’s rights impact assessment, where children are directly impacted by the policies and/or particular groups of children and young people are more likely to be affected by others. As I mentioned, there is no requirement to publish these documents in England. However, the documents are currently under review and we will advise on our next steps shortly. More broadly, with regards to the impact assessments, these will be published in due course.

[Neil O’Brien]

I thought I had heard Ministers say previously that they were planning to publish this for our benefit—that we would get both the impact assessment and the children’s rights assessment. Perhaps it is me who is sowing confusion and the Minister may still intend to publish this document. I cannot see any reason why the Government would not publish it, so can I get an assurance that that is going to be published?

[Stephen Morgan]

To state this clearly, the impact assessment has not yet been published but is obviously informing our work. Obviously, various different assessments are undertaken and I will certainly get back to the hon. Member on those points.

[Stephen Morgan]

To be clear, we will be publishing the regulatory impact assessments. We will certainly be using the evidence from the children’s rights impact assessments to inform our work.

I turn to the points raised by the Opposition spokesperson on placements of children under the age of 13. Depriving a child of their liberty must always be a last resort, but it is sometimes necessary to keep that child and others safe. These children are some of the most vulnerable in our society. We must do all that we can to keep them safe and help them get on well in life. When a child under the age of 13 is deprived of their liberty and placed in a secure children’s home, the local authority must obtain approval from the Secretary of State before applying to the court. That requirement is set out in regulations that reflect the added seriousness of depriving children so young of their liberty.

The Opposition spokesperson and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) also made a number of broader points about child protection plans and deprivation of liberty. Local authorities’ care-planning duties are clear that when there are looked-after children, they must have a long-term plan for a child’s upbringing, including arrangements to support their health, education, emotional and behavioural development, and their self-care skills.

The statutory guidance “Working together to safeguard children 2023” is clear about the actions that local authorities and their partners should take, under section 47 of the Children’s Act 1989, if a child is suffering or likely to suffer significant harm, as well as the support that should be provided under section 17. If there is a concern about a child’s suffering, or if a child is likely to suffer significant harm, the local authority has a duty to make an inquiry under that Act. “Working together to safeguard children” sets out the actions that the local authority and their partners must take when there are child protection concerns. That includes putting in place child protection plans when concerns are submitted. I hope that the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part.

[Neil O’Brien]

I hope that we can clear up the confusion about whether we will see the children’s rights assessment. I cannot see any good reason why we would not be able to see that perfectly routine assessment. None of these things is the end of the world, but not having the impact assessment of the thing that we are quite deep into line-by-line scrutiny of seems to further compound this problem. Obviously, no one can defend that; it is not good practice.

I slightly pre-empted what the Minister said—he had scribbled some last remarks—but I was glad that he came to some of the points raised by CAFCASS and the Children’s Commissioner. I raised them partly because I know that their lordships will be extremely interested in these specific questions. There probably is scope for improvement of this clause to do some of those other good things, because this is such a serious issue for those very young children.

We will not vote against clause stand part, but I will press our amendment to a vote. I heard what the Minister said, but I just make the point that there is scope for improvement in the clause, and I suspect that their lordships will provide it.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

Clauses 11 and 12 will strengthen Ofsted’s regulatory powers to allow it to act at pace and scale when that is in the best interests of children. Specifically, clause 11 strengthens Ofsted’s powers to hold provider groups—parent undertakings, in legislation—to account for the quality of the settings that they own and control. This ensures that Ofsted can take the quickest and most effective action to safeguard vulnerable children, without adding duplication within the existing regime. It will allow Ofsted to look across provider group settings as a whole and take action at provider group level, rather than being limited to doing so setting by setting as it is now. It will also ensure that a provider group is accountable for the quality of the settings that it owns.

Where Ofsted reasonably suspects that requirements are not being met in two or more settings owned by the same provider group, it will be able to require senior people in the provider group to ensure improvements in multiple settings. The requirement applies both to settings operated by a single provider and to multiple providers owned by the same group. Ofsted will be able to request that the provider group develops and implements an implementation and improvement plan to ensure that quality improves. The plan will need to address the issues identified by Ofsted and be approved by Ofsted if it is satisfied that the plan will be effective in addressing the issues.

The clause gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to provide that non-compliance by the provider group means that the providers that it owns are not fit and proper persons to carry on a setting. That will prevent a person from being registered in relation to new settings if their owner has failed to comply with the relevant requirements under these provisions. That should act as a deterrent and ensure compliance with the requirements.

Clause 12 gives Ofsted the power to issue monetary penalties to providers that have committed breaches of requirements, set out in or under the Care Standards Act 2000, that could also be prosecuted as criminal offences, including operating a children’s home without registering with Ofsted. Ofsted will also be able to issue a provider group with a fine for non-compliance with the requirements set out in clause 11. The fine will be at Ofsted’s discretion and is unlimited in legislation. That will act as a significant deterrent, so that provider groups comply with these requirements. Clause 12 ensures that Ofsted has an alternative to prosecution where that is currently the only enforcement option against those seeking to run a children’s home without registration. Ofsted will not be able to impose a monetary penalty on a person for the same conduct where criminal proceedings have been brought against them in relation to that conduct.

To act as a deterrent and to ensure transparency for the public, the clause gives the Secretary of State the power, by regulations, to require Ofsted to publish details about the monetary penalties that it has issued. Ofsted must also notify local authorities when a monetary penalty has been issued, as it is currently required to in relation to other enforcement actions that it takes. Finally, the clause provides that the issue of a monetary penalty could be used as grounds for cancellation of registration.

[Neil O’Brien]

We are entering a whole new section of the Bill. I will make a number of points now that we could come back to when we debate future clauses, but I hope we will not have to. I hope that we can have discussions about the principle and philosophy now and we might be able to move faster later, but we can come back to them if necessary.

As we turn to the clauses dealing with children’s homes, I want to start by checking that the Minister has the same basic understanding of the situation, and the same philosophical take on what we are trying to do, as I do. First and most importantly, there is a question about the underlying structural problems that have driven high costs for local authorities in the provision of residential care for children and young people, and there is a second question about the best approach to tackling that, both legislatively and non-legislatively.

On the first, does the Minister agree with me, at least in principle, that the main issue driving the high costs is a shortage of foster care, which is driving local authorities to send children into expensive children’s homes at best, or into unregistered provision at worst? Research by Ofsted in 2022 suggested that residential care was part of the care plan for just over half of the children whose cases it reviewed. To put that the other way round, almost half of children who ended up in residential care should ideally not have been there. Crucially, the research shows that the original plan was for over one third of children to go into foster care.

Although the Bill makes changes to the provision of information about kinship care, which is good, there is nothing that will produce the step change that we need to increase the number of foster carers, which is the thing that would really take down the demand and the high costs. That point is common to the discussions that we will have about cost-capping social workers, cost-capping individual care homes and reviewing whole entities. I do not think that those measures are bad; I just do not think that they are ultimately the underlying solution. That is a point that the Committee will hear me make several times today.

In his independent report commissioned by the previous Government, the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) highlighted that in the year ending March 2021,

“160,635 families came forward to express an interest in becoming a foster carer, and yet just 2,165 were approved”.

That is just 1.3% making it through. It might be that some of those were just initial approaches and not all of those people were deadly serious, but that is still a very small share. He continued:

“Local authorities perform a wide range of roles and appear to be struggling to provide specialist and skilled marketing, recruitment, training and support for such an important group of carers. In 2020/21 recruitment and retention among independent fostering agency services led to a net increase in capacity of 525 additional households and 765 additional foster care places. In contrast, there has been a decrease in capacity of 35 households and 325 places in local authorities over the same period”.

By definition it is quicker, and in quite a lot of cases better, to provide foster care than to build a new children’s home. I want to press the Minister on what he thinks is the explanation for that 99% gap between those expressing an interest in fostering and final approvals. What is he doing to close that gap? He will be aware that there is a perception that it is almost impossible to become approved as a foster carer. We looked at this in my family some years ago. We started in on it through my work as a constituency MP; I have met many constituents who are foster carers. They are incredible people and I pay tribute to them. A woman I know well has fostered 70 children as well as adopting. I honestly think these people are amazing.

The Government really need to use the Bill—this rare legislative slot, as one of the Ministers said—to increase the number of foster and kinship carers. Publishing information is good, but it will not change much unless it is accompanied by a radical attitude to approvals by local authority social work teams. When the alternative—which we are getting to in this clause—is children being sent miles from home, placements breaking down, children going missing and high costs to local authorities, there is obviously a burning platform for change.

If I were the Minister—he is free to take this suggestion or not—I would commission a month-long desktop review to look at the pipeline and all the decisions to reject applications to be foster carers that got fairly far down the track, and understand what can be learned from them. That could shape amendments either here or in the other place and be a huge benefit to him. I can think of a senior official in a Government Department—someone the Government trust to run a major public service—who has two kids, provides a loving home and wanted to foster but was turned down. There are many such cases. Everyone knows the phrase “too many books in the house”, but I strongly encourage Ministers to dig into the underlying question of why we lose so many opportunities to get the foster carers that would take off the pressure that we are trying to take off with these clauses.

A key recommendation of the independent review of children’s social care led by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington was to introduce mixed models combining residential and foster care, particularly for older children, who are the fastest growing part of this cohort. That was part of our brief for the initial pathfinder sites for the regional care co-operatives, which I mentioned in the debate on a previous clause. What assessment has the Minister made of that approach? What impact does he think its adoption might have? Is there any interesting early data from the pilots in Greater Manchester and the south-east?

Speaking of mixed models, I encourage the Minister to look at the incredible work of the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which, as he knows, does amazing work looking after care-experienced and edge-of-care children in a network of state and independent schools. It has been working with the DFE since 2020—something I am very proud that we brought in—and has provided incredible, transformative opportunities for disadvantaged young people. I encourage the Minister to build on that and go further.

On the specifics of clause 11, after the terrible abuse of children supposedly in the care of the Hesley Group, it is absolutely right that the Government are trying to identify systemic safeguarding problems in organisations that manage multiple children’s homes, independent fostering agencies and residential special schools. Our only concern, which is quite serious, is that we should allow for rapid action, not something that drags on and becomes a time and resource-consuming process.

I heard what the Minister said in introducing the clause about providing an alternative to prosecution, but I do not want to lose sight of the importance of prosecution. My noble Friend Baroness Barran told me that when she was a Minister in the Department for Education, she was already able to request inspections of every home in a group where one was judged to be failing, and did so on at least one occasion. Ultimately, we need experienced people to go into a home quickly and see what is actually happening. I think this is within the spirit of what the Minister said, but I hope he would agree that there is often no better alternative to actual inspection and actual prosecutions.

To use an example from a very similar area, the Department can also request an “improvement plan”, which is the main vehicle proposed in these clauses, in the case of independent schools, but that does not always work well in practice. The reasons for that are instructive for the kinds of issues that I hope Ministers will think about here. What ends up happening is that plans are sent in varying degrees of adequacy, and time—in some cases literally years—can be wasted with a lot of letter writing back and forth. I urge the Minister to think about the action he wants in those kinds of cases. Imagine being in the middle of a drawn-out improvement plan process in another case like the Hesley Group case—and that is before the inevitable appeals, which the clauses provide for, kick in.

We have not tabled an amendment to do this—I wonder, though, about the other place—but we think that the Minister needs to confine the improvement plan idea to more minor administrative cases or lower-level concerns. That is where it might be more appropriate. We worry that we might get similar processes to those that we have seen in independent schools, where we have a resource-intensive, rather bureaucratic and slow process that goes on for a long time with a lot of back and forth and appeals. Ultimately, we sometimes just need to get to the point. That is our broad concern.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Seventh sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

The beauty of this scheme is its universal offer—a free offer to every child in primary school. As I mentioned earlier, we see the clear benefits of the scheme in terms of attainment, behaviour and, indeed, attendance. That is what is really exciting about our plans.

Work is already under way with 750 early adopter schools to start to deliver from April 2025, thanks to a tripling of funding for the breakfast clubs at last October’s Budget compared with financial year 2024-25. Early adopters are just the first step in delivering on our steadfast commitment to introducing breakfast clubs in every primary school. They will help us to test and learn how every school can best deliver the new breakfast clubs in the future and maximise the benefit to schools, their pupils and the families and communities they serve. Legislating for breakfast club provision in the Bill will give schools the certainty they need to plan for the future and ensure that there is a consistent and accessible offer for children and parents who need a settled start and support with childcare. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I rise today, as we pass the halfway point of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill, to find that we still do not have the impact assessment. The Bill has passed Second Reading. It is totally pointless having an impact assessment of a measure if it is produced after has Parliament debated it. The Ministers would make the same point if they were still shadow Ministers, so I make it to them now. I do not understand what the hold-up is.

The last Government substantially expanded access to breakfast clubs in primary and secondary schools and created the holiday activities food programme. The national school breakfasts programme has been running since 2018, and in March 2023 the then Government announced £289 million for the national wraparound childcare funding programme, which helps to fund breakfast clubs, among other things. That was part of a much wider expansion of free childcare that saw spending on the free entitlement double in real terms between 2010 and 2024, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, including things such as the 30-hours offer, the two-year-old offer and the expanded childcare offer.

We will not vote against the clause and will not push our amendments to a vote, but I was struck by the comments made by Mark Russell of the Children’s Society, who said that given the resource constraints, he would have focused on rolling out breakfast clubs to a greater number of deprived secondary schools, rather than on a universal offer in primary. He said:

“I would like to see secondary school children helped, and if the pot is limited, I would probably step back from universality and provide for those most in need.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 55, Q122.]

I draw attention to the uncertainty being created by the Government’s refusal to commit to funding the existing free breakfast provision in secondary schools beyond next year, and likewise to the uncertainty being created around the holiday activities and food programme. A number of witnesses in our first oral evidence session called for Ministers to guarantee that funding beyond next year, and I join them in asking Ministers to give us that guarantee, or at least give us some sense that the provision targeted on deprived schools will be maintained.

To that end, our amendment 28 would lock in the existing provision in secondary schools and secondary special schools. There are arguments for specifically targeting needy secondary school pupils. According to evidence submitted to the Committee by Magic Breakfast:

“The extension to secondary pupils in special schools would not require a significant amount of additional resource”.

It would require about 2.2% of the budget. What did Ministers make of the suggestion by Magic Breakfast to make secondary special schools a priority? The Government have made primary schools their priority.

Amendment 26 would require the Government to report properly on provision. Groups such as Magic Breakfast are calling for careful measuring and monitoring of the programme, which is what we need. In Wales, we saw a commitment brought in in 2013 to reach all primary schools, but by last year, 85% of disadvantaged pupils were still not being reached by the provision. Obviously we do not want that to happen here. The Secretary of State must collect data on who is getting breakfasts and on the impact. As Magic Breakfast said in its evidence to the Committee,

“if the Government policy doesn’t significantly impact”

behaviour, attendance, concentration, academic attainment and health and wellbeing,

“then the Secretary of State should consider the efficacy of the policy roll out.”

That is why we want special monitoring.

The programme is landing on top of a complex existing patchwork, as the Minister said. Some 85% of schools already have a breakfast club, and one in eight of all schools, including secondary schools, have a taxpayer-funded breakfast offer. The new requirement being brought in by the clause will interact with the existing provision in lots of different ways.

Many school breakfast clubs currently run for an hour on a paid-for basis, and I hope that most of them will want to continue to run for at least the period that they run now. Now, if a breakfast club is provided for an hour or more, the school will have to charge the first 30 minutes but not the final 30 minutes, which unavoidably leads to complexity. On the other hand, we do not want schools to focus on just delivering the new statutory 30 minutes then pull the earlier provision, which is useful for parents. Schools will have to do a lot of agonising as they think all this through, and they will have to manage it carefully. In some cases, where the demand is very high, schools may struggle get all the children fed in 30 minutes—lunchtime is normally longer than that. That is one reason why Magic Breakfast is calling for advice and guidance, which I hope the Minister will consider.

Amendment 27 asks for a report on funding, because there is still a lot of uncertainty around that. According to a report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies last year:

“Based on the experience of the national school breakfast programme, the estimated annual cost today would be around £55 per pupil…for food-only provision and double that (around £110) for a ‘traditional’ before-school breakfast club. Labour’s manifesto offers £315 million overall in 2028; this could be enough to fund all primary school pupils under a food-only model, or 60% of pupils if the party plumps for a traditional breakfast club with some childcare element.”

The Government are just at the pilot stage, and we just want to make sure that the lessons are learned about the very real costs of this policy in different places and settings, be that for on-site provision, off-site provision, expensive or cheaper places to live, or small rural primaries. They will all have different costs and the funding will have to reflect that.

Hopefully all of these problems are surmountable, as this is obviously a good thing, but we want careful monitoring to make sure that the policy is actually making changes and having the positive impacts that people hope for, and to avoid any unintended consequences.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

There is a uniform shop, Uniform Direct, in my constituency in Derby, which was opened by Harvinder Shanan. Like me, she is a mum of three. She is determined to drive down the costs of school uniform and understands the financial pressures that local families face, particularly with the cost of living crisis that the last Government left us in. Her small business has been able to reduce the cost of items. She told me about how in one instance, when she began to supply a school, she was able to bring the cost of their blazers down from £75 to £25.

I note that the majority of the schools that Harvinder Shanan supplies are already compliant with the limitations on the number of branded items that the Bill imposes. If many can reduce, or have already reduced, the number of branded items, I am concerned that amendments seeking exceptions would fundamentally undermine the purpose of the clause, which is to bring down the costs of school uniform that families have to bear. Some providers might seek to increase the costs of branded items. Consideration of a cost cap was asked for, to limit the amount of money that could be charged. I invite the Minister to keep the clause under review and to keep all options open, should the cost of branded uniform items rise.

Turning to new clause 56, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston indicated a shared concern about prescription for schools, which seems somewhat at odds with the prescription sought through the new clause, which would prescribe details of how second-hand items might be made available down to what is on school websites. My concern is that the detail of that provision would impose so much prescription that when there are new items of uniform, second-hand items simply would not be available.

In total, the clause represents a huge saving for families in Derby North and across the country. I greatly welcome the provision.

[Neil O'Brien]

I find myself in great agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Twickenham said about the danger that this provision will turn into a piece of backfiring micromanagement. The Opposition have made that point and, indeed, we have heard Labour Members make the same point. We are not in a position to make a fiscal commitment today, but I thought that that the hon. Lady made a good point about VAT. I found myself agreeing with more and more of what she was saying and then, towards the end, when she started talking about potential Brexit benefits, I realised we were really through the looking glass. Remarkable moments here today—incredible scenes.

To describe our amendments in brief, amendments 29 and 30 say that schools can have items that parents do not have to pay for, and amendment 31 clarifies that it is three at any given time. Schools can require replacement of lost items; amendment 32 exempts PE kit, and amendment 91 exempts school sports team kit. New clause 56 is a positive suggestion to make schools offer old uniform to parents. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, we do not particularly want to be prescriptive, but if we are going to be, we might as well do it in sensible ways. That builds on the previous guidance.

When I was a school governor, which was mainly under the previous Labour Government, I was struck by the flood of paper that came forth every week from “DFE Towers”, the Sanctuary Buildings. That flood abated a little after 2010, although probably never enough. Sometimes, I wondered whether we had more ring binders with policies in than we had children; but that might soon seem like a golden age, because under new Ministers, the urge to micromanage seems to be going into overdrive.

Our guidance, introduced in 2021, encouraged schools to have multiple suppliers, and it was focused on generally holding down costs, as the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out. Parents are in fact spending less in real terms on school uniforms overall than they were a decade ago, according to the DFE’s own survey. The DFE found that average total expenditure on school uniform overall was down 10% in real terms, compared with 2014.

[Tom Hayes]

Does the shadow Minister agree with a 2023 report by the Children’s Society which showed that school uniform costs were another burden on families, impacting on children’s education, to the point that 22% of parents were reporting that their child was experiencing detention for breaching uniform policies, and one in eight had been placed in isolation? Last year, the Children’s Society surveyed parents again and found that two thirds were finding uniform costs unaffordable, which is not surprising given the cost of living crisis affecting so many parents. The hon. Member speaks as a former school governor and therefore with deep experience. Does he agree that we need to reduce the cost of uniforms, because parents are struggling and, as a consequence, children’s education is suffering too?

[Neil O'Brien]

That is a very helpful intervention, because it lets me say what I was about to say next. We obviously want to reduce the cost of school uniform, but really, we want to reduce the cost of clothing children overall. If we have the kind of backfiring effects that a number of Members on both sides have pointed out, we will not achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

The shadow Minister’s new clause 56 sets out specific things in great detail. It seems really odd that he has a concern about micromanagement in light of the provisions he has tabled.

[Neil O'Brien]

The hon. Lady is quite right to point out the tension between wanting to avoid micromanagement and saying that if we are in the business of prescription, we might do some sensible things. I wanted to offer a positive suggestion rather than simply critique what the Government are doing, which is why that is there. Indeed, a lot of schools are already doing it. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but one reason why Whitehall micromanagement is a bad idea is that rules dreamed up by civil service mandarins in London often go wrong when they make contact with the real world. That is exactly what has happened here.

I have no doubt that Ministers’ intentions for clause 23 are good, but it will have the opposite effect to the one they intend. It may well make things more expensive for parents—not less. That will hit many schools. Ministers said, in answer to a written question, that

“based on the Department’s 2023 cost of school uniforms survey of parents, we estimate that one third of primary schools and seven in ten secondary schools will have to remove compulsory branded items from their uniforms to comply”.

Instead of measures the Government could have brought forward in the Bill—things that the polls show are teacher priorities such as discipline, as Teacher Tapp shows—we will have at least 8,000 schools spending their time reviewing their uniform policy.

Worst of all, this may well end up increasing costs for parents overall. Many secondary schools will respond to this new primary legislation by stopping having uniform PE kit, at which point, highly brand-aware kids will push parents to have stuff from Adidas or Nike or whatever instead, which will be more expensive. What do we think that school leaders will get rid of in response to the new rules? We know that according to the Government, lots of them will have to change their uniforms in response to this.

In a poll of school leaders last year, more than half said that the first things they would remove in the event of such restrictions would be PE kit, but uniform PE kit is cheaper than sportswear brands; it is nearly half the price for secondary school kids. I worry that the Government have a sort of tunnel vision here. They want to cut the cost of uniform, but we really want to cut the cost of clothing children overall. The problem is that when we get rid of uniform, particularly PE kit, what will fill the space is often more expensive and worse.

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

I speak as a parent of a child at a secondary school with branded PE kit, so I have some interest in this. Maybe my understanding is wrong, but surely any responsible school following this becoming law, as I hope it does, would still have a uniform? Uniform does not have to be branded to be uniform. This would not necessarily mean that it would be a free for all and that children would be encouraged to turn up in all sorts of branded sports gear. They can still wear plain sports clothes that are uniform and are not hugely expensive or branded by international sportswear brands.

[Neil O'Brien]

That is an incredibly helpful point, because it leads me to the point that the word “branded” here is being used in a very specific way, which is not a particularly natural meaning. Anything specific or anything where there is only a couple of shops that sell it will count as branded. For example, I think of the rugby jumper that I used to wear when I was doing rugby league in Huddersfield in the 1990s. It was a red jumper with a blue stripe. If it was freezing cold and snowing, I could reverse it. That jumper was branded. It did not have any brand on it—it was not sportswear—but anything like that is captured in the provision. I also remember that when I was at school, in summer we had very unbranded clothing. The school said, “You can have a black T-shirt.” What happened? Everyone had a black Nike or Adidas T-shirt, so more expensive stuff fills the space.

Let us take a worked example and think about the primary school that my children go to, which is typical. They have a jumper and a tie in the winter. My daughter has a summer dress. They have a PE hoodie, a PE T-shirt and a plastic book bag, so they are a couple of items over the limit. Our children are at a really typical state primary, so which of those items do Ministers want them to drop?

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is up to the school.

[Neil O'Brien]

If they drop the book bag, other bags will likely be more expensive. My kids are quite young, so they are not very brand-aware, but we will end up with a request for a branded bag and something more expensive. [Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

[Neil O'Brien]

If we get rid of the PE tops for the older kids, we will end up with branded sportswear stuff. [Interruption.] If Members want to intervene, they can do so.

I watched the kids in a London secondary school arriving for school the other day, and it was really apparent from watching them that the expensive thing for their parents was not the uniform, but the expensive branded coats that they were wearing over them. All the fashion brands were on display. I worry that we are missing the pressure that is put on parents to get this stuff when we take out uniforms. It is ironic that the word used in the legislation is “branded” school uniform, when fashion brands—real brands—will fill the space that Ministers are creating by trying to micromanage schools.

I will talk about sports teams and amendment 91, which I will press to a vote. There is a specific problem here. The explanatory notes to the Bill state that an item of branded uniform will be considered compulsory if a pupil is required to have it

“to participate in any lesson, club, activity or event facilitated by the school during that year. This means that it includes items required for PE and sport. This applies whether the lesson, club, event or activity is compulsory or optional (i.e. even if an activity is optional, if a pupil requires a branded item of uniform to participate”,

it will count towards the cap. It is clear that that means that if there is a sports team and it has a kit, that would count towards one of the three branded items. The explanatory notes make that absolutely clear.

If there is more than one school team, the problem is even worse. If a school had a sports team for athletics, rugby, swimming, football or whatever it might be, pupils would use up the entire limit of items doing that. This is effectively as good as a national ban on having school sports team kits. This is micromanagement gone wrong.

[Amanda Martin]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil O'Brien]

I would also welcome an intervention from the Ministers if they want to say why this is wrong.

[Amanda Martin]

Having taught in schools and had schools sports teams, we have kits within the school. When pupils represent their school teams, the kits are washed and given out to the children, because that means that all children get a chance to participate. Schools might not have the same football or rugby team. Those kits belong to the school and are taken in and washed, so it does not stop children of all abilities and backgrounds representing their school.

[Neil O'Brien]

That is another hugely helpful intervention, because it lets me say two things. First, the clause as drafted does not help, because it uses the words “to have”. Unless the Government accept our amendments, the fact that the kits are being given does not make any difference, because the legislation does not say that. Secondly, there is an implicit assumption in the hon. Lady’s intervention that all schools will, from now on, have to pay for all this themselves. It is generous of her to make the huge funding commitment to schools that she has just mentioned, but unfortunately I do not think that the Ministers have come up with the money to do what she says.

We know why there are school sports teams. We do not expect English, Scottish or Welsh football teams to have a single kit. There is a reason why teams have a kit, yet that will effectively be banned by the clause. Amendment 91, which I will press to a vote, would exempt school sports teams. The DFE’s current suggestion on what schools should do in this situation is to give pupils kit, as the hon. Member for Portsmouth North said, but even that would not work under the clause unless the Government accept amendments 29 and 30. We have also tabled the amendments because the Bill as drafted potentially bans schools from asking children to wear “more than three” compulsory branded items even if the school has provided them for free, which is obviously bizarre. That is why our amendment would change “have” to “buy”.

That brings me to amendment 31, which is a practical one to correct what I think is a drafting error. At the moment, if a child grows out of, or loses, or damages a branded item, then parents will not have to replace that item within the academic year because the Bill says that they cannot be asked to “have more than three” items during a school year. If schools are allowed to require three branded items, then they should obviously be allowed to require that those items are replaced otherwise, effectively, uniform policy becomes unenforceable.

Instead of all this backfiring micromanagement, our new clause 25 points toward a different, more effective way to reduce costs for parents. Some 70% of schools already offer second-hand uniforms. Our amendment just aims to get schools doing what many others already are. As the parent of primary school children, I know how much is already passed on from sibling to sibling and from family to family outside school, though that is something that is obviously much less likely to happen with non-uniform items.

Finally, it says in the notes of the Bill that parents can make a complaint to the Department and that

“The department will be able to act when it is found that a school has not complied with the limit”. I feel that Ministers should have better things to do with their time than to try and fail to micromanage schools and determine whether the PE kit at Little Snoddington primary school is compliant. After so many attempts at micromanagement, I just worry that this is going to backfire and the cost in the end to parents is going to be higher.

[Amanda Martin]

While I have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, I want to draw his attention to the real world of parents, the cost of uniforms, the impact of negativity on pupils. As a former teacher and a parent of three lads who did not all go to the same school, so could not always have their clothes passed down, I am really pleased to see clause 23. We have heard from the Children’s Commissioner that this is an issue for so many children, through her big ambition conversation on behalf of children. We also see a BBC survey that notes how senior teachers, and I have been one of these, have helped parents buy uniform and have provided school uniform. That is done by so many staff in our schools across the country and it also shows the cost of the hardship that parents and families are under.

The Children’s Society also note in their support that this is “practical and effective”. They do not see it as red tape, as lines being drawn, or as schools being held to account. They actually see it as a real, practical and effective way to help children and to help parents afford uniform. It does not stop schools stipulating a school colour or a standard of uniform, relating to their own uniform policy. It stops uniforms costing the earth. Many parents have emailed me, and one parent said that they stagger the cost of uniform across the year—buying one now and getting another next time, when they get paid. That leaves children—I am guilty of it myself— wearing uniforms that are too big, and that they never grow into. Or worse still, if the uniform is passed down, it might be worn out because siblings have worn it, or a cousin has worn it, or a neighbour has worn it before donating it to the kids. The clause stops children feeling self-conscious and really uncomfortable in school. It gives them a sense of dignity while they are in their school place and—we all know— if they feel pride in who they are and feel confident, it helps with learning and with being able to take part fully in education.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Eighth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

Sounds good.

[Tom Hayes]

Sounds good, but I want to bring us back, if I may, to reality. We need to do that, because first, all of us in this room would acknowledge that the status quo is not working. I have been a school governor, I have sponsored a mental health project for children and young people, and I know just how hard teachers and support staff work. We all know how fantastic our schools are, but still the status quo is that parents are struggling, and children are suffering.

I was dwelling on what to say particularly because some of this is very personal to me; I grew up as a free school meals kid on a council estate caring for two disabled parents. It is only in recent times that I have started to talk openly about growing up in poverty— I would previously call it “financial hardship”, but that feels too clinical a term. I call it poverty, because if I am now an MP, it is my duty to speak truth and to try to show some inspiration to families locally who may be struggling. That does present its challenges, particularly in the conversations that I have with my mum, because she does not feel comfortable all the time with me talking about growing up in poverty. She feels that somehow it is her son’s way of saying that she did not do well enough, that she failed, and that she let him down in her duties. That shame persists.

I spoke with her last night about my role in this Committee, and what we were discussing and considering today. I told her what I would say if the opportunity arose, and we again navigated that difficult conversation, as I am sure I will do many times in the future. I had to bring it back to the point that she did everything she could; she loved and cared for her sons and tried her best, but ultimately the society that we live in held her back. Despite her best efforts, politics was not there to support her. If somebody at the age of 41, as I am, is having this conversation with their mum so many years later, imagine the conversations that might happen in 30 or 40 years’ time between parents and children, where a parent hears from their child as an adult that they did not get all they needed, and that somehow they were not able to achieve all that they may have wanted.

We need to bring it back to the real world, because, in truth, uniform costs are significant. When I speak with parents locally, they cite uniform costs as a reason why they cannot properly care for their children in the way that they want to. When I told my mum last night that I would be sitting in this Bill Committee, and that a Government would be moving forward with an Act of Parliament to cap the number of uniform items, that said a lot to her. It said that we had her back, that we did not believe that parents who did their best but were held back by poverty were to blame, and that they were not being shamed. For an Act of Parliament to cap the number of uniform items and to reduce the cost for families felt to her—as I know it will feel to many of my constituents—like a hugely symbolic step.

When we talk about politics as a place of disconnection and hopelessness, and of politicians not delivering against what people want, having an Act of Parliament that says, “We are on your side; we understand what you are going through, and we think that this is such an important step to take that we will enshrine it in statute,” is, I feel, a really important way, in a time of polarisation, division, hopelessness and frustration, of trying to bridge the gap that exists between our politics in this place and the reality of people’s lives in my constituency and everybody else’s.

Because it always sticks in my mind, I will close with this quotation from William Blake:

“Pity would be no more,

If we did not make somebody Poor”.

What we are here to do today, as we are every day as elected representatives, is to address and overcome the structural causes in our society that make people poorer, that limit people’s opportunities and life chances, and that make our society weaker and less vibrant. With this Government’s proposal to cap uniform items, I think we have an opportunity to tackle one of those structural causes, and to actually show to our communities, “Yes, after so much division and hopelessness, we are on your side.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

This was the main point that we wanted to make, and it is good to have confirmation from the Minister that our interpretation of the notes is correct. The notes say it

“includes items required for PE and sport… even if an activity is optional, if a pupil requires a branded item of uniform to participate in that activity, then the item will count towards the limit.”

The Minister has just said that this will absolutely bite on school sports teams—

[Catherine McKinnell]

That is not what I said.

[Neil O'Brien]

That is precisely what the Minister just said. She said that by having the amendment we would be allowed to have unlimited numbers of items for school sports teams. So it is clear that the measure bites in exactly the way that we say it does, which is why we need amendment 91.

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, the two things do not follow. I said that the limit on the number of branded items applies to PE kits. However, schools still have the freedom to choose how to use that branded number allocation, including in relation to PE and sports. It does not restrict the ability of schools to loan out specific competition kit where appropriate. The intention of the measure, which amendment 91 would completely undermine, is that the cost of PE and sports kits should never be a barrier to participation in PE and sports. That is what the measure is intended to achieve—while his measure would achieve the opposite.

[Neil O'Brien]

Just to confirm what the Minister is saying, under the clause if passed, school sports teams will not be able to require pupils to own the items. In the future, schools will only be able to loan items for school sports teams to their pupils, so there will be quite a big difference.

[Catherine McKinnell]

To be clear, the legislation will require that parents cannot be mandated to purchase more than three branded items, or four including a tie. That includes PE and sports kits. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman lives in the real world, but many schools already loan out sports kits to ensure the full participation of any child, and do not require the parent to buy the kit to participate in that sport. Many secondary schools have opportunities for a whole range of sports—quite rightly—and they all potentially require different kit, as well as matching kit in order to present a uniform team image. Many schools will already loan out the kit where they have to compete externally.

Schools can loan it out or they can provide it for free. Indeed, the entire purpose of the provision is to ensure that no child is prevented or put off from taking part in sport because they are worried about the cost of the sports kit. That should never be a barrier to a child’s participation in PE and sport. It is therefore right that schools that continue to require large numbers of branded items are forced to reduce them. That is why the measure is needed.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend puts it in a nutshell.

Speaking of additional complexity, I turn now to amendments 59 and 60—I have not picked on those particularly; they just happened to coincide with the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. Tabled by the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby (Mike Amesbury), the amendments seek to reduce the number of branded items primary and secondary schools can require from three to two. I know that the hon. Member has been a long-time campaigner on the issue of making school uniform more affordable for families. That is why I am sure he will share our view that, while school uniform plays a valuable role in creating a sense of common identity among pupils and reducing visible inequalities, too many schools still require an unacceptably high number of branded items.

The Government believe that a limit of three branded items provides the best balance, reducing costs for parents while ensuring that schools, parents and pupils can continue to experience the benefits that allowing a small number of branded items can bring. Restricting schools to only two branded items will make it harder for schools to find that balance and set a uniform policy that works best for their circumstances. That is especially true for secondary schools, which will already have to make choices about how best to use their limit of three or four branded items, depending on their local circumstances. We believe that the limit of three provides clarity to parents, gives them more choice in where they purchase uniform and allows them greater flexibility to make the spending decisions that suit their circumstances, all while giving schools the flexibility they need to set their uniform policies.

I turn now to amendment 61, also tabled by the hon. Member for Runcorn and Helsby, which seeks to remove the ability of secondary and middle schools to have four compulsory branded items when one of those branded items is a tie. This Government are genuinely ambitious about reducing costs for parents, but we recognise that there are different uniform needs in primary and in secondary schools. The vast majority of primary schools do not currently require a branded tie and, as most primary schools already have a low number of compulsory branded items, we do not want that number to increase.

In comparison, most secondary and middle schools already require branded ties, which are generally low-cost and long lasting. Ties are often a quick and distinctive way of signifying belonging, including identifying houses or year groups, so allowing secondary and middle schools an additional branded tie recognises the reality of school uniform policies in England. It balances reducing costs for parents with providing secondary schools with the necessary extra flexibility in setting their uniform policies.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister is very kind to give way. She has raised the issue of house ties; if a school is already at its limit of branded items for the year, and halfway through the year a child is offered a branded house tie, that would be an additional item, would it not? That would take them over the limit, so how is that supposed to work?

[Catherine McKinnell]

A school would have to operate within the limits of these requirements, so it would probably choose not to introduce these things mid-year. It is really not that complex.

--- Later in debate ---

The guidance is clear about our intent while giving schools the flexibility to keep their existing second-hand arrangements or to set up new arrangements that best work for their circumstances. For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the hon. Member not to press his new clause, and I commend clause 23 to the Committee.

[Neil O’Brien]

I intend to press only amendment 91 to a vote. We have had an interesting and thoughtful debate this afternoon. I note again that we have heard from the Association of School and College Leaders, Government Back Benchers, the Liberal Democrat Front Bench and the Conservatives about the danger that these measures will backfire and that, in the real world, what will replace cheap, standard PE kit is more expensive, branded sportswear. That is why we wanted to exclude PE kit. I will not press the new clause to a vote—we do not have time to press every single thing to a vote—but I would like to press amendment 91.

[The Chair]

When we get to that amendment, I will ask you to formally move it.

--- Later in debate ---

Local authority consent for withdrawal of certain children from school

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 24, page 46, line 3, leave out from beginning of line to “a” in line 10.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 46, in clause 24, page 46, line 4, leave out subsection (3).

Amendment 35, in clause 24, page 46, line 18, at end insert “or,

“(c) providing services to the child or their family under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.”

[Neil O’Brien]

Amendment 33 would delete the requirement for children in special schools to secure local authority consent to be home educated. In contrast, amendment 35 would widen the scope of required consent from just those children subject to section 47 investigations to those under a slightly lower level of concern with social services, which are section 17 children in need.

I will turn to the widening amendment first. We support the Government’s intention with this clause to give local authorities the power to withhold consent to home educate a child where it is subject to a section 47 investigation or a child protection plan, or where it is a section 17 child in need. However, we worry that the clause as drafted might not fully achieve the Government’s aims and create a bit of a conflict of interest for a local authority, so our amendment would broaden the criteria to include children in need under section 17.

The Government spoke rightly of the tragic case of Sara Sharif, but my understanding is that unfortunately she would not have been protected by the Bill as drafted, as she was not the subject of a section 47 child protection plan. As the Children’s Commissioner wrote in December:

“Despite there having been evidence of violence at home since birth, Sara was not under any intervention from social care when she died. The Bill must therefore go further in protecting children like her, making it impossible for a child ever known to social care for abuse or neglect to be home schooled.”

That request goes a bit further than our amendment, but it is a really powerful argument. What does the Minister make of the argument that the clause should require consent for home education if a child has ever been a subject of concern?

Although our amendment does not go as far as the Children’s Commissioner’s idea, I hope that it is in that spirit, in so far as it widens the scope of the clause to include more children where social workers have live concerns. I hope the Government might accept it, either here or in the other place, once they have had time to chew it over. I do not necessarily expect an immediate answer from the Minister, but I hope that he will think about it at the very least.

The DFE’s child practice review panel on elective home education, which was published last year, looked at 41 cases where a child died or was seriously harmed and elective home education or a child missing education was a factor. Some 29 children were defined as being in elective home education, and six were defined as being children missing education. There was not enough information to classify the final six. Some 24 of those children had no agency involvement, never mind child protection, and some were not known to services at all. The bar of a section 47 investigation or a child protection plan is simply too high in some cases to protect some quite vulnerable children. That is the widening.

Amendment 33 would provide the narrowing to not include all those in special schools. I was surprised when I was saw subsection (3), and I had to speak to quite a few people to check that I was reading it right. The right to educate children at home is quite a fundamental one, and there are a lot of circumstances where it is the right thing for a child with special needs, because of either their physical or mental health needs. It is quite a big thing to say that they are now all to be treated in the same way and lumped together under the same clauses as children of concern to social services with child protection plans. Some of these children are very sick, and the last thing that their blameless, amazing parents need is a load of bureaucracy. Sometimes, they will need to move fast. In a previous sitting I mentioned a child with incredibly intense needs who is a constituent of mine. It seems strange to require her parents to go through bureaucracy if they want to home educate her, given her incredibly high level of physical health needs.

I mentioned at the start of my speech that there is a potential conflict of interest. We have heard of some examples where educating a child who is in a special school at home is discouraged, because it would increase the cost to the local authority—for example, in the provision of therapeutic or medical support at home—even though it is potentially in the best interests of the child. Can the Minister reassure me that that will not happen in future?

I wondered what Ministers were trying to get at here and whether there was some sub-category of children in special schools who they were interested in. I read through the explanatory notes really carefully, but they were silent on why children in special schools are being included on a blanket basis. I am completely open to persuasion on this issue, and perhaps the Minister will say more about it, but the first time I read the explanatory notes, I thought, “What? Why on earth are we treating all the parents of kids in special schools in the same way that we treat people who are literally the subject of live social services investigations for abuse?”

I will say more on the second group of amendments to this clause, but just to reiterate, we are supportive of what the Government want to do here. We want to widen it in one way and potentially narrow it in another. I am interested in hearing the Minister’s remarks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Member for raising those issues. She is a real champion, certainly on SEND issues and the challenges that parents face. I will say a bit more about the points that she made shortly. My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards is also a real champion of these issues and will set out our reform plans later this year.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will just make some progress.

Amendment 35 seeks to expand the eligibility of the home education consent process to include those children and families receiving support and services under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. The Government are investing £500 million to support the national roll-out of family help and multi-agency child protection reforms from April 2025, and our ambition is that families can access the right support from the right person as soon as they need it.

The family hub model combines targeted early help and section 17 support into a seamless, non-stigmatising approach focused on the whole family through a single plan and consistent worker, even as a family’s needs change. Bringing children in need into scope of the home education consent process is likely to prevent families from seeking support when they need it, the opposite of what we want. Parents and families might well be reluctant to accept support from the local authority under section 17 if it meant that their ability to home educate was called into question and, potentially, permission to home educate was refused.

Furthermore, not all children will receive support and services, because of safeguarding concerns or because they have particular educational needs. For example, all disabled children, including those with disabilities that would not necessarily require special educational needs provision, are automatically eligible. Given that, we believe that including this group of children in the consent measure would be disproportionate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

I wonder whether there is some tension between the Minister saying that one reason we should not include section 17 children is that some of them are disabled, and then rejecting amendment 33 because it is right that all pupils in special schools should have to go through this consent mechanism because a lot of them will be disabled. Those two arguments seem to be very much in tension there.

To press him a little bit on this point about not excluding those in special schools, can the Minister say roughly how long a timeline we are talking about? What sort of information will special school parents have to provide in order to win the right, as it were, to home educate? What is he going to do to stop this from being a long process in which parents of special school pupils do not have their children where they want them, with them at home, even when ultimately that is going to be the decision?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the shadow Minister for his response. He makes a number of points with regard to section 17 support and services for children and families. I want to reassure him that we have already strengthened and clarified multi-agency guidance around early help and section 17 through the working together legislation and through the families first for children pathfinder. We are testing new ways to reform every part of the children’s social care system. The Government have already nearly doubled direct investment in preventive services for children and families, including the roll out of the family help and multi-agency child protection reforms from April this year. Taken together, we believe these reforms will drive fundamental shifts in the way we help, support and protect children and families in every part of the system.

There are a number of questions and contributions I will now specifically respond to in the debate on this group. On the tragic case of Sara Sharif, of course we cannot say for sure what might have made a difference, but we will learn lessons from the future conclusion of the local child safeguarding practice review. The Government are taking action to reform every part of the children’s social care system through the Bill and investing over £500 million in national roll-out of the family hub and multi-agency child protection reforms from April.

The shadow Minister raised a number of points made by the Children’s Commissioner; I can confirm that I regularly meet and engage with the Children’s Commissioner on a range of issues. I note with interest that she has previously advocated for extending the consent mechanism more widely, but that that was not reflected in her written evidence to the Bill Committee.

With regard to the consent for home education, if someone has ever been subject to a safeguarding concern, we believe that this is a proportionate response that focuses on the most vulnerable.[Official Report, 12 February 2025; Vol. 762, c. 5WC.] (Correction) The Government are taking action to reform every part of the children’s social care system through the Bill, with the investment in family help.

On the question of what might make a local authority refuse permission for SEND children, I would like to make a number of points. We do not consider that children in those circumstances are necessarily at risk of harm. However, the loss of their support entitlement would clearly be a major upheaval in the child’s life, and it is prudent to retain a check before the child comes off roll and their place is filled by another pupil.

On penalising home-educating families, many parents work hard to give their children a good education in the child’s best interests, as a number of hon. Members have mentioned today. These measures are about not penalising families, but supporting children and keeping them safe. These measures are part of our concerted Government action to keep children safe and help them to thrive. We are reforming every part of the children’s social care system to make that happen.

With regards to the justification for not allowing a parent to remove their child from a special school to home educate without local authority consent, parents will often only do this because they think that their child’s needs are not being met. It is helpful to have a requirement for local authority consent before a parent can withdraw their child from special school to home educate; this provides a check that there are no educational suitability issues resulting from the loss of the support that the child is receiving in a special school and that home education would be in the child’s best interest. That builds on the similar requirement that has existed in secondary legislation for many years.

On the matter of only requiring local authority consent for children in special schools to be removed for home education, parents of children in special schools have for many years needed local authority consent to withdraw them from the roll. This long-standing policy is in place to support continuity of the child’s education, balancing parents’ wishes and each individual child’s special educational needs. I assure the Committee that we will continue to engage with stakeholders before considering changes to the category of children currently in scope of proposals.

[Neil O'Brien]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 46, in clause 24, page 46, line 4, leave out subsection (3).—(Munira Wilson.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Division 10

Question accordingly negatived.

Ayes: 5

---

Conservative: 3
Liberal Democrat: 2

Noes: 10

---

Labour: 10

[Neil O'Brien]

I beg to move amendment 34, in clause 24, page 47, line 6, at end insert—

“(8A) Where a local authority refuses consent in respect of a child who meets the criteria for Condition A, the local authority must provide the parents or carers of the relevant child with a statement of reasons for the decision.

(8B) A statement of reasons provided under subsection (8A) must include an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child.”

This amendment would require a local authority to submit a statement of reasons when they do not agree for a child who meets Condition A to be home educated.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Neil O'Brien]

This is a very straightforward amendment. It adds that where a local authority refuses consent, it must provide the parents or carers of the relevant child with a statement of the reasons for the decision, including an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child. Of course, we hope that would happen anyway, but we are just making good practice part of the legislation.

[Stephen Morgan]

The amendment, tabled in the name of the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, seeks to establish that, when local authorities refuse a parent’s request for consent for a child who attends a special school under local authority arrangements to be home educated, they must provide a statement of reasons for that refusal to the parent. The statement must include an assessment of the potential costs and benefits to the child.

As part of their existing public law duties, local authorities need to provide reasons as to why they have decided to grant or refuse consent for home education when notifying the parent of their decision. We will make that clear in the relevant statutory guidance, which will need to be updated so that relevant professionals know what is required of them. We are also committed to engaging with local authorities, home educators and other stakeholders following Royal Assent to inform guidance and implementation. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the amendment.

Turning to clause 24 stand part, every child has the right to a suitable education in a safe environment, which will meet their needs, nurture and stimulate them, and open doors to future opportunities. For most children, that will be achieved by regular attendance in a school setting, but I recognise that for a small number of children and families, home education is in the best interests of the child. Sadly, there is evidence from local authorities and the Department’s own data collection that some children who have been withdrawn from school to be home educated are not receiving a suitable education. The child safeguarding practice review panel has found that some children have suffered significant harm, and even death, due to abuse or neglect while not in education.

We saw this in the recent appalling case of Sara Sharif, whose father and stepmother withdrew her from school, ostensibly to be to home educated, in order to help to mask their continued violence and abuse until her tragic death. While we cannot say for certain that this tragedy would have been prevented if Sara had not been withdrawn from school, we must ensure that purported home education can never be used to conceal the abuse of a child. Clause 24 is an important safeguarding mechanism in that respect.

Our priority is to protect all children, an aim supported by other measures in the Bill. However, clause 24 places a particular focus on protecting the most vulnerable children. We have set out clearly those instances where children will fall within the scope of clause 24, and we have said that it will apply to pupils in England who are of compulsory school age and for whom at least one of the following applies: the child attends a special school and becomes a pupil at that school through arrangements made by the local authority, the child is subject to a child protection inquiry under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, or there is a child protection plan in place.

The children who are subject to child protection inquiries and plans are among our most vulnerable children in society, and the children who attend special schools have a high level of need when it comes to ensuring a suitable education. It is right that we take additional steps to protect them. Clause 24 does not mean that such families will not be able to home educate their children; it means that we are asking the local authority to take a closer look. We want to ensure that the authority knows which children in its area may be home educated, and makes an informed decision, based on the facts and information available, to determine what will be in the best interests of the child.

We have ensured that clause 24 is underpinned by a review process so that a local authority’s decision on whether to consent to home education can be put before the Secretary of State for review. Statutory guidance will also be published to help schools and local authorities to carry out their new duties consistently from authority to authority, and in a proportionate way.

[Neil O'Brien]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 24 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 25

Registration

[Neil O'Brien]

I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 25, page 49, leave out lines 20 to 21.

This amendment would remove a requirement for the register of children not in school to include details of how much time a child spends being educated by parents.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 63, in clause 25, page 49, line 23, after “parent” insert

“in respect of each individual or organisation which provides such education for more than six hours a week”.

This amendment would ensure that information relating to short activities such as those operated by museums, libraries, companies and charities, as well as individual private tutoring activities, would only need to be recorded on the register of children not in school if they are provided for more than six hours a week.

Amendment 64, in clause 25, page 49, line 36, at end insert—

“(1A) The requirements of subsection (1)(e) do not apply to provision provided on weekends or during school holidays.”

Amendment 86, in clause 25, page 49, line 36, at end insert—

“(1A) The requirement to provide information under subsection (1)(b) does not apply where a safeguarding concern in respect of either parent has been identified.”

Amendment 65, in clause 25, page 50, line 41, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may only require further information about children to be included on the register by introducing regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations, subject to agreement in Parliament, when seeking to require additional information to be included in the register of children not in school.

Amendment 67, in clause 25, page 52, line 33, after “436B)” insert

“but does not include any person or provider that is providing out-of-school education to home-educated children on weekends or during school holidays.”

This amendment would mean that providers of out-of-school education would not be required to provide information to local authorities in respect of education they provide on weekends or during school holidays to home-schooled children.

Amendment 66, in clause 25, page 52, line 40, after “way” insert “,

but may not refer to an amount of time that is less than or equal to six hours a week.”

This amendment would mean that providers of out-of-school education would not be required to provide information to local authorities where they provide education for fewer than six hours a week.

Amendment 68, in clause 25, page 54, line 43, at end insert—

“(9) The Secretary of State shall publish annually the GCSE results of children listed on the register.

(10) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the GCSE results of children on the register are included for each set of outcome data published by the Government.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to record outcome data for children on the register as a subsection of each set of performance data published by the Department for Education.

Clause stand part.

[Neil O'Brien]

The principle of having a register for children not in school has long-held cross-party support. However, as I outlined in the debate on clause 24, there are very different groups of children who may be educated at home. In our eagerness to safeguard vulnerable children, we must also make every effort not to stigmatise or treat as suspicious parents who make a positive choice to home educate their children.

In clause 25, subsections (c) to (e) of proposed new section 436C of the Education Act 1996 require a lot of very specific details from parents, such as the amount of time they spend providing education for their child. In the Bill that we brought forward when in Government, we used a rather broader approach, citing such details as the means by which the child is being educated. The drafting of the proposed the new section seeks to make all home schoolers provide a pretty extraordinary level of detail, on pain of breaking the law. We understand the intent, but our amendments seek to make that a bit more proportionate and a bit less intensely onerous for legitimate home-schooling parents.

Amendment 62 would take out the requirement on parents to specify how much time a child spends being educated by each parent—something that would likely vary from week to week in many cases, and would also be slightly invasive into people’s home lives if the parents are not living at the same place. Amendment 63 would add a de minimis floor of six hours a week, so not every single tiny appointment or 30-minute piano lesson has to be recorded, but only the substantive bits of education outside the home, which is more to the original intent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

I rise to speak in support of clause 25 and to amendment 86 in my name. As I said on Second Reading, the Liberal Democrats strongly support the introduction of a register of children not in school; it is an overdue measure which is supported by all parties, and I am very glad to see this Government introducing it.

I know from my own inbox, as well as from the many pieces of written evidence the Committee has received, that many parents of home-educated children feel that the register is an attack on them, so I want to reiterate—it is certainly my own party’s position—that we fundamentally support parents’ right to choose to home educate. This is about keeping children safe. We have had so many reports, not least from the Children’s Commissioner about children just disappearing from the system, and about how important this register is. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and other children’s organisations also support it.

I share the concerns of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston around how much information is being asked of families to provide for this register, as stated on the face of the Bill. As I sat during Christmas recess reading it, I was quite shocked; I questioned why this information was needed and what it was going to be used for. I thought it was very instructive that I thought, “Look, Munira, you’re not the expert here,” and asked the experts, but when I asked Andy Smith from the Association of Directors of Children’s Services at the oral evidence session last week if he thought this level of detail was needed, his words were

“there may be some reflection on whether there needs to be such a level of detail captured.”—[Official Report, 21 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 15.]

[Neil O'Brien]

I worry that local authorities are going to drown in a sea of information; rather than having simple information they can use to make a decision; they will have so much that they will be wading through it and everything will be slowed down.

[Munira Wilson]

Absolutely—I agree completely. I was talking to the director of children’s services in my own borough earlier this week about it, and read the provisions to him. I think he was shocked as well, and wondered how they would be implemented. I say this very much in the spirit of making the measure workable, but I urge Ministers to think again about the amount of information being collected. We think that a number of the amendments tabled by His Majesty’s Opposition are sensible and proportionate, and would mean that the measure is less intrusive.

Amendment 86, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, is a simple safeguarding provision. Where both parents are required to give their details, if there is a safeguarding reason that it would be bad for one parent’s address to be revealed to the other, for example because it would make the child or the other parent unsafe in a case of domestic abuse, the amendment would mean that that requirement did not apply. It would make sure that everybody is kept safe.

I have a couple of other comments on the level of detail required. Have Ministers thought about whether the measure will have a disproportionate impact on the families of SEND children? We have received written evidence, and I have received emails, from those who have made the difficult decision to home educate because of SEND needs that are not being met in the state sector. They are often home educating because their children cannot cope with regular school schedules. At home, they can educate and work with the ebb and flow; how they educate will be much more fluid. Parents are asking, “How on earth am I to meet these requirements? Will I be breaking the law if I cannot exactly quantify how many hours I have spent each week doing a certain task, given the way I need to educate my child in order that they can thrive?” For instance, if a child is being taught about nutrition and food technology while cooking dinner with their parents, will that count as part of the education time? I am not sure. I hope that the Minister will address those concerns.

I am slightly alarmed by proposed new section 436C(2)(a), which provides that information about a child’s protected characteristics will be collected. Some faith groups are worried about how that data might be used in judging the success of their education. Can the Minister allay those fears?

Proposed new section 436C(5) refers to information about data being published. I would hope that very little data is being published at all. I know that the measures contain safeguards, but other than a headline-level understanding of how many children are being educated not in school, we do not need to publish too much. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I join colleagues in finding troubling the level of detail to be required of home-educating parents. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston would make sensible adjustments to that, for example by deleting the requirement to show the split between how many hours are done by parent 1 and how many by parent 2. The Government could also amend the frequency of reporting to something more reasonable—or, handily, there is a piece of text ready and waiting, because a private Member’s Bill last year from my then hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley contained the text for a proposed new section 436C.

Proposed new section 436E concerns providers. Did Ministers consider approaching this measure in a completely different way? They could have said that the onus should be on the provider to say who they are and to demonstrate their bona fides, with Disclosure and Barring Service checks and so on, as part of a light-touch registration regime. I am not necessarily advocating such a scheme, but what other models were thought about?

On proposed new section 436G, Ministers will know that a gripe of home-educating parents is that a lot is asked of them but little is offered back. Might it be sensible to change the wording? Instead of the support being

“whatever the local authority considers fit”,

it could be something like “whatever the local authority considers fit, having regard to guidance that it may receive from the Department for Education,” or from Ofsted or whoever it might be.

[Neil O’Brien]

I will just register this point again for Ministers to consider. A lot of people are surprised to learn that although a school will pay for a child to enter GCSEs and the like, home educators do not enjoy that benefit. If we want to make it easier for people to home school their children properly, rather than their children just being out of school, we need to address that long-standing issue. I wonder whether Ministers will consider that point?

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend’s intervention brings me to my final point. Apart from the cost issue, there is the simple question of access and of children being able to sit the GCSE. As there is a vast amount of detail involved, it would be helpful to say that local authorities should ensure that entry to examination centres is possible for those children.

--- Later in debate ---

Amendment 68, in the names of the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich and the shadow Minister, seeks to ensure that the Department publishes the GCSE results of those on the children not in school register, and that those results are included in each set of departmental published outcome data. I highlight that the Department does not publish any results data at an individual student level. Instead, results are published at an aggregate level across England. It would be inappropriate and potentially unlawful to publish the GCSE results of specific, individual children.

[Neil O’Brien]

I would have thought it was pretty clear that our intent was to provide information on the aggregate rather than the individual. Of course we do not publish individuals’ GCSE results anywhere, but does the Minister have a disagreement in principle with the idea of publishing aggregate data on the achievement of this group of young people?

[Stephen Morgan]

That is not something that we are currently considering, but the shadow Minister’s point will be recorded in Hansard.

The Department for Education is responsible for driving high and rising standards in state schools across the country. DFE headline data is therefore focused on pupils at the end of key stage 4 attending state-funded schools in England. To hold state-funded schools to account, the Department publishes performance data for schools and colleges. The purpose of that performance data is not to provide information about the attainment or achievement of individual pupils. The Department publishes performance data at a regional and national level, so that it can track the performance of the state-funded sector.

Including children not educated in the state school system would distort these figures and make it more difficult to monitor the performance of state schools. In choosing to home educate, parents are opting out of this system and assuming responsibility and accountability for the education of their child, whether they choose GCSEs or any other type of qualification. I also recognise that some home-educating children choose not to take any public examinations. This data would therefore offer an incomplete picture of the outcomes of this cohort.

A comprehensive view of outcomes for home-educated children cannot be based on a single measure. That is why clause 25 includes powers to require additional information to be held on the children not in school register and for this information to be provided to the Department so that it can be analysed and actions can be taken at a national level to support these children.

It is also true that, on results day, the Joint Council for Qualifications already publishes results by qualification and subject. This is data for all students taking that GCSE, including home-educated children, adults and independent and state school pupils. It would therefore not be appropriate for the Department to publish the results of this cohort or include them in performance data. I therefore kindly ask the hon. Member not to press the amendment.

I turn to clause 25. The number of children who are not in school because they are being home educated has drastically increased since the covid-19 pandemic. The numbers have more than doubled since 2019: the latest Department data shows that 111,000 children were home educated as of October 2024. As I have highlighted, all parents have a legal responsibility to ensure that their child receives a suitable, efficient full-time education. Some parents choose to fulfil that responsibility by home educating their children. I reassure the Committee again that we recognise that parents have the right to do so, and that many work hard to ensure that their child receives a suitable education. But as we know, this is not the case for all.

Local authorities have a legal duty to identify all children not in school in their areas who are not receiving a suitable education. However, as parents do not need to notify the local authority that they are home educating, it is difficult for authorities to fulfil that duty and to take action to support and protect children where necessary. It is vital that we introduce an effective system of registration for children not in school. Clause 25 will introduce compulsory registers in every local authority in England and a duty on parents of eligible children to provide information for them. This will help authorities to identify all children not in school, including those who are not receiving a safe, suitable education and, where that is the case, support them to take action.

Parents of eligible children will be required to provide the local authority with the information necessary for operation of the registers, including the child’s name, address and date of birth, the names and addresses of each parent, and details of how, where and from whom the child is receiving their education. A local authority can require a provider of out-of-school education to give information on children attending their setting, if the authority believes the provider to be supplying education to an eligible child for a period above the prescribed threshold. Having these duties on parents and certain providers of out-of-school education to provide information will ensure that as many eligible children as possible are on local authority registers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I know that my hon. Friend has been meeting home educators in her own local authority area who have had a difficult relationship with Portsmouth city council. I know that she will take those concerns to that local authority and feed back to home-educating parents.

To address a point that was raised earlier, local authorities may also be able to analyse information from the registers and take action, should that be deemed necessary—should families feel forced into home education due to dissatisfaction with schools or mental health concerns, for example. The hon. Member for Twickenham also raised a number of points about the disproportionate impact on SEND families. We have undertaken a thorough equality impact assessment, and this information will allow local authorities to provide more tailored support to those children.

[Neil O’Brien]

We will withdraw our amendment today, but overall, we are still not persuaded that the objectives that we all share for this Bill could not be met in a more proportionate and less bureaucratic way. I hope that their lordships will have further thoughts on that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

[The Chair]

I think the hon. Member for Twickenham gave notice that she wished to move amendment 86.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 69, in clause 26, page 63, line 18, at end insert—

“(7) A school may submit an appeal against a school nomination notice to the School Admissions Adjudicator for the reasons given in this part and for any other reason.

(8) During the appeal period, the school will be responsible for the education of the child.”

This amendment allows schools to appeal nomination notices.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Neil O'Brien]

The amendment would set up a right of appeal. A lot of other measures in the Bill have rights of appeal—we have discussed some of them in earlier sittings—and such an appeal would not hold up an order because the amendment specifies that

“During the appeal period, the school will be responsible for the education of the child.”

However, the amendment would give the school the right to an appeal where a completely inappropriate child is ordered to attend it.

Although we support the principle of the clause, we have a number of concerns. First, subsection (2) of the proposed new section 436I of the Education Act 1996 sets out points that the local authority must consider when deciding if a school attendance order is appropriate. Those points include considering

“how the child is being educated and what the child is learning, so far as is relevant in the particular case”.

I hope the Minister agrees that this needs careful thought, in consultation with families. There is a slightly Orwellian ring to the idea of a local authority deciding what it is appropriate for a parent to teach their child. In practice—as Members have said—many parents of children with special needs do not home educate as a positive choice but because their child was not thriving in the local school. Those parents might find it overbearing to have this kind of scrutiny of their efforts. What does the Government plan to do to allow them to have input into this approach?

Will the Minister confirm the maximum prison sentence for failure to comply with a school attendance order? Proposed new subsection 436P(8) of the 1996 Act states “level 4” and my understanding is that could be as much as 51 weeks. Given everything we know about the impact on a child of imprisoning their parents, will the Government reconsider the potential sentence, since, in many cases, it would result in a child or children being taken into care?

[Stephen Morgan]

The amendment seeks to provide a route of appeal to the adjudicator for a school named in a nomination notice for a school attendance order. It is unnecessary because there is an existing route of appeal in proposed new section 436M of the Education Act 1996. That new section provides that a school can request a direction from the Secretary of State within 10 days of being told of the local authority’s intention to name them in a nomination notice. That reflects the existing legislation, as the same right is contained in section 439 of the 1996 Act.

[Neil O'Brien]

To be clear, instead of having an appeal to, say, the adjudicator, the only appeal would be to the Secretary of State, who would be acting in a judicial capacity in that respect.

[Stephen Morgan]

Yes, that is my understanding. The provision proposed by the Bill strikes the right balance between giving schools a say and protecting a child’s right to a safe and suitable education. The amendment is therefore not only unnecessary but would disadvantage children. By placing no time limit on when an appeal may be brought, it means that a school could appeal at any time after being named in a notice. That could result in a child’s education being disrupted unexpectedly and impact the child’s sense of security and belonging in the school. I therefore kindly ask that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the amendment.

I will now speak to the clause. Parents of every child of compulsory school age must secure efficient and full-time education that is suitable to that child’s age, ability, aptitude and special educational needs. When children are not receiving a suitable education, the school attendance order process addresses that through requiring regular attendance at a named school.

The clause amends the school attendance order process in England to extend and strengthen it. In addition to addressing instances when a child is not in receipt of suitable education, as school attendance orders do now, the orders will also act as, first, a consequence for parents not providing information for a local authority’s children not in school register and, secondly, will provide a route for a home-educated child to attend school if that child is subject to a child protection inquiry or a child protection plan and the local authority decides that it would be in the child’s best interest to do so.

When a local authority has concluded that it is necessary to begin the school attendance order process, the first step is for the authority to issue the parent with a preliminary notice. That notice will require parents to evidence that their child is receiving a suitable education and, in the case of a child subject to a child protection process, that it is in the child’s best interest to receive education otherwise than at school. When a local authority is deciding whether to serve a school attendance order, it is important that it considers the child’s full circumstances. That is why the clause will place a new requirement on local authorities to consider all the settings where the child is being educated and their home environment when deciding whether to serve an order.

To help authorities make that assessment, they will have a new power to request to visit the child inside their home. For children who are not educated at school, the home environment is typically central to their ability to learn, so it is important that authorities can take it into account. Parents retain the right to refuse access to the family home, but, if access is not given, this will be a relevant factor for the authority to consider when deciding whether to serve an order. If a local authority identifies that a child is not receiving a suitable education or is in an unsafe environment, it is important that the authority can take action as quickly as possible to support and protect the child. For this reason, additional timeframes across the school attendance order process are being introduced.

To make school attendance orders more consistent for local authorities and parents when involving different types of schools, the process for and effect of orders for academy schools and alternative provision academies will be brought into line with that of maintained schools. All state-funded schools will have a duty to accept the child to their school once the order is issued. The clause also ensures that parents can be prosecuted for ongoing failure to comply with the school attendance order, and the penalty for failure to comply has been increased from level 3 to level 4 of the standard scale, which brings this into line with knowingly allowing a child to be absent from school.

However, it is not our intention to criminalise parents, and we expect that only a minority will be prosecuted for failure to comply. During the process, parents will have ample opportunity to provide evidence that home education is suitable or in their child's best interests. If an order is already in place, it must be revoked by a local authority if the parent demonstrates that their child will receive a suitable education and, where relevant, that it is in the best interests of the child to be educated outside of the school setting. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Neil O'Brien]

Although we still think it would be better to have an appeal to an independent adjudicator rather than the Secretary of State, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 26 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27

Data Protection

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause 28 stand part.

Clause 29 stand part.

Schedule 1.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

Clauses 30 and 37 concern the regulation of independent educational institutions. I will turn first to clause 30. All children should receive the best chances in life and an education that helps them to achieve and thrive. To support that, it is already a legal requirement for private schools to register with the Secretary of State. Registered schools are regularly inspected and action is taken against schools that potentially put children at risk of harm by providing an unsafe or poor-quality education. The clause will bring more settings that provide a full-time education into that well-established and effective regime. That will lead to more children learning in a regulated and safe setting that is subject to regular inspection.

At present, private schools are regulated mainly by chapter 1 of part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008. The Act allows private schools to be subject to regular inspection, regulates the changes that they may make to their operation, and provides mechanisms to allow the Government to intervene in cases of severe safeguarding risk. The clause redefines the settings that are to be regulated under the 2008 Act and extends those protections to more children who attend full-time educational settings that are not schools. It will also provide clarity to those running educational settings about whether the regulatory regime applies to them.

In broad terms, settings will be required to register with the Secretary of State if five or more children of compulsory school age, or one or more such child with an EHCP—education, health and care plan—who is looked after by the local authority, could be expected to receive all or a majority of their education at the institution. When determining whether the new test of “full-time” is met, the factors found in proposed new section 92(4) in the clause will be considered.

Finally, in the interest of clarity, the clause provides a list of excepted institutions. Excepted institutions are not being brought into scope of the 2008 Act, even though they otherwise may meet our new definition. Generally speaking, that is because they are already captured by a suitable regulatory regime.

I will turn to clause 37. Clause 30 is intended to ensure that more settings that provide full-time education to children are subject to regulation. In addition, other legislation already applies in England to independent schools, but will not automatically apply to other independent educational institutions. Further legislation will be required if that is to apply to all the settings regulated under the 2008 Act. Clause 37 provides a regulation-making power to do that, and to apply other legislation that applies to independent schools—over and above the 2008 Act—to other full-time educational institutions.

That approach is proposed for two reasons. First, it will permit Parliament to debate the principle of bringing independent educational institutions into the existing regulatory regime in the 2008 Act for independent schools. Secondly, it will allow Parliament to debate separately the practical impacts of that with regard to the other individual pieces of legislation. That is because any regulations made under this proposed power will be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Parliament will have the opportunity to scrutinise and approve any regulations made under clause 37. The clause is a mechanism to allow the changes, which might be regarded as downstream from clause 30, to be made.

To turn back to clause 30, this reasonable and proportionate step is built on a clear principle. Settings that provide education on a full-time basis and, as a result, are more responsible for children’s educational wellbeing, should be regulated and subject to Government oversight. The measure closes and identifies weakness in our existing regime. No more will settings be able to avoid registration and regulation by offering a narrow education, meaning that some children are not equipped to thrive in the modern world.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I could pick this concern up in our next debate, on clause 31, but a related issue is linked to my concerns about this clause, so I will give the Minister a moment to reply. He mentioned the list of excepted institutions, which we find at clause 30, page 70, from line 17, and various types of institution are exempted: local authority schools, special schools, 16-to-19 academies and further education colleges, but not academies and free schools. Why? I want to check that that is a conscious choice by the Government and to get an explanation of why that is the case.

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

With your permission, Sir Edward, my remarks apply to clauses 30 to 36, because I thought it was more convenient to speak to them all together. Clauses 30 to 36 are extremely welcome to tackle illegal schools. Such schools are mostly, but not always, faith-based—

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, for his constructive response. He made a number of points and asked whether the clause applies to academies. It will not change the way in which academies, as state-funded independent schools run by not-for-profit charitable status trusts, are regulated. Academy trusts are accountable to the Secretary of State for Education through their contractual funding agreement, the terms of which already require them to comply with the regulatory regime established by the 2008 Act. All academy schools are subject to regular inspection by Ofsted under the education inspection framework.

[Neil O’Brien]

Is that not also the case for 16-to-19 academies already? I do not understand why they have to be exempted in the Bill, but non-16-to-19 academies are not. Surely they also have the same kind of funding agreement.

[Stephen Morgan]

I am happy to take the shadow Minister’s points away and get him a response in due course.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 30 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31

Independent educational institution standards

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 70, in clause 31, page 72, line 31, at end insert—

“(1A) Powers under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to an academy.”

This amendment specifies that the Secretary of State should rely on the provisions in Funding Agreements as regards to academies.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss clause stand part.

[Neil O’Brien]

This will be relatively short and sweet. Amendment 70 aims to prevent a large and, I hope, unintentional expansion of the Secretary of State’s powers. Academies and free schools are, of course, independent state-funded schools. I think that under clause 30, an academy school, but not a 16-to-19 academy, is an independent educational institution for the purposes of the 2008 Act. This amendment to clause 31 would ensure that the powers under proposed new section 118A(1) may not be exercised in relation to an academy; instead, the Secretary of State should rely on the provisions in funding agreements with the academies and free schools.

Our amendment is grouped with clause stand part, so I also want to ask the Minister about something I read in the regulatory impact assessment. Page 56 states:

“We have identified one possible adverse distributional impact. Based on our current understanding, the Independent Schools Standards: Registration Requirements measure is expected to disproportionately impact some religious or faith-based schools. Where in scope of the new regulation, these schools may have to meet the Independent School Standards, which may entail costs.”

Will the Minister say how large those costs are, or explain why faith schools are disproportionately impacted? It may be unrelated but I also noted various references in the impact assessments to the Haredim; will the Minister speak to why that group is particularly affected by some of these measures?

[Stephen Morgan]

Amendment 70 seeks to disapply for academies the new power to suspend registration given by clause 31. It would not be appropriate if children in academies were not protected by the additional powers within a regulatory regime that already applies to them. I hope that that gives the assurance sought by the shadow Minister, and that he agrees to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 31 will make several changes to the regulatory regime for private schools found in the 2008 Act. The clause has a number of distinct parts, including a new power of suspension. It may help hon. Members if I quickly summarise the most significant changes.

First, the clause will allow the Government to set out, in regulations, standards requiring individual proprietors, or individuals with the general control and management of the proprietor, to be fit and proper persons in the Secretary of State’s opinion. Secondly, the clause will allow the Secretary of State to direct the chief inspector to carry out an inspection of an institution that has lodged an appeal against a decision not to register it, so that up-to-date information can be given to the tribunal.

Thirdly, as discussed, the clause makes a power for the Secretary of State to temporarily suspend the registration and, where applicable, the boarding of an independent educational institution, such as a private school. That power would be used when the Secretary of State is satisfied that there are breaches of the relevant standards and she has reasonable cause to believe that, because of the breaches, there is a risk of harm to children at the institution. During the period of suspension, the proprietor would commit a criminal offence if the institution remains open, providing education or other supervised activity, or if it were to provide boarding accommodation in breach of a stop boarding requirement.

In addition, rights of appeal to the first-tier tribunal against a decision to suspend registration or to impose a stop boarding requirement are conferred by subsection 31(6). We acknowledge that a suspension of registration would be a serious step that would inevitably disrupt children’s education; the new powers are therefore likely to be used only in the most serious cases. It is, however, essential that we have appropriate tools to provide the flexibility to act appropriately in cases where students are at risk of harm.

Finally, the clause will, by amending section 124 of the 2008 Act, change how appeals against enforcement action to deregister private schools are determined by the first-tier tribunal. That will ensure that more effective action can be taken against private schools with long-term or serious failings. In some cases, private schools can avoid deregistration by making improvements to meet the standards at the time of the appeal hearing. These changes will ensure that the first-tier tribunal carefully considers future compliance. The clause reverses the burden of proof so that the appealing proprietor must demonstrate that it has capacity to sustain compliance with the standards. These measures make many improvements to the existing system of private school registration and regulation, and I therefore commend the clause to the Committee.

[Neil O’Brien]

We thought that it was unintentional that academies are being brought into this new system of regulation. From the Minister’s comments, it is clearly intentional. This is triple dipping: the Minister already has controls over these schools; clause 43 takes that further, and this is another thing. I therefore will push the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

On the hon. Member for Twickenham’s points about Ofsted, the powers are available only to investigate the commission of specified relevant offences. Our experience is that the majority of inspections of unregistered schools are conducted under Ofsted’s existing powers process and on the basis of consent and co-operation. We anticipate that that will continue even after Ofsted has been granted the enhanced powers in the measure. The powers will not be available to Ofsted when inspecting private schools against the independent school standards. The hon. Member asked about resources for Ofsted; we are working closely with Ofsted on what the powers will mean, as Sir Martyn set out in the evidence session.

I will take away the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale and write to her on those matters.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 32 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33

Material changes

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 71, in clause 33, page 86, line 12, leave out lines 12 and 13.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 72, in clause 33, page 86, line 38, at end insert—

“(2D) The Secretary of State must issue guidance for relevant institutions on how subsection (2)(g) is to be understood.”

This amendment to allow independent schools not to have to notify the Secretary of State about change of use for buildings.

Clause stand part.

Clause 35 stand part.

[Neil O’Brien]

Section 102 of the 2008 Act requires the proprietor of an academy to make an application to the Secretary of State for the approval of a material change, as defined in section 101 of that Act. Clause 33 introduces a new definition of material change, which adds to the list of material changes in the 2008 Act.

Proposed new subsection (2)(g) will require the notification of the Secretary of State when there is

“a change of the buildings occupied by the institution and made available for student use”.

Some of the things in the proposed list are reasonable things for the school to have to apply to the Secretary of State for—if it is a complete change of the proprietor or a change to the age range, or if it stops being a special school or moves to a completely different location, that is fine—but the idea that schools should have to apply to the Secretary of State if there is a change of the buildings occupied by the institution is too vaguely defined.

If I build a new building or get some new bits stuck on the end of one of the wings of my school, do I have to apply to the Secretary of State? It is not clear from a natural reading of proposed new subsection (2)(g). We worry that this will end up with even minor changes requiring approval from the Secretary of State, which is not necessary. Given that a breach of the provision can lead to an academy being deregistered as an independent educational institution, or the imposition of restrictions on the academy, it seems excessive.

Amendment 71 seeks to delete paragraph (g), which would be the best outcome, while amendment 72 seeks at least for the Secretary of State to provide guidance. Will the Minister provide some reassurance that we are not going to end up with schools feeling like they have to apply to the Secretary of State every time they build a new building, move out of one wing or add an extension to another? It seems like a recipe for unnecessary bureaucracy, creating legal risks for academies that really should not be there.

[Stephen Morgan]

Amendment 71 would make changes to clause 33, which, among other things, requires private schools to seek prior approval from the Secretary of State before they occupy a building and make it available for student use. The amendment is intended to remove this new requirement. I appreciate that there may be concerns regarding new burdens on private schools, but let me explain why the change is necessary.

Currently, a change of buildings occupied for student use, either at or away from the registered address, is not a material change. This means that there is no prior assurance that new buildings are safe for student use. Unfortunately, we see examples in which private schools are inspected and children are found in buildings that are unsuitable for their education and, in some cases, unsafe.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister keeps talking about private schools, but am I right in thinking that this also applies to academies?

[Stephen Morgan]

I answered the shadow Minister’s point earlier. We are referring specifically to private schools in this legislation. This is an important and necessary change that I trust Members will support.

Amendment 72 would place on the Secretary of State a legal obligation to publish guidance regarding how a change of buildings for student use will work. I reassure Members that the Department already publishes non-statutory guidance for private schools in relation to applications to make a material change. I can confirm for Members that we intend to update the guidance ahead of introduction, to explain how provisions are intended to operate. For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the shadow Minister not to press his amendments to a vote.

On clause 33, if a private school wishes to amend its registered details, prior approval must be sought through a material change application. This process provides assurance that the school will still meet the independent school standards after the change is made. The current regime is too restrictive in the case of schools that admit students with special educational needs. An application for a material change is required to start or cease to admit one student. The Bill will redefine this material change to require an application to be submitted when a school wants to become, or ceases to be, a special school. It will also become a material change when a special school wants to change the type of special educational needs for which it caters. That will provide greater clarity and transparency to parents, commissioners and inspectorates.

In addition, as already discussed, there will be an entirely new category of material change. It will become a material change for a school to make a change to the buildings it occupies and makes available for students’ use for more than six months. The clause also allows for an appropriate degree of discretion in deciding whether a material change can be approved.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

We are consulting and engaging widely on the Bill. The hon. Lady’s point is well made, and the Department will respond to it in due course.

Finally, clause 35 allows more proportionate action to be taken if a private school makes an unapproved material change. Currently, deregistration is the only option available, but forcing a school to close is often not a proportionate action to take. The new proposals will allow for relevant restrictions to be imposed on a private school by the Secretary of State when an unapproved material change is made. This will often be a more proportionate response, providing parents with confidence that suitable action can be taken to ensure that private schools are safe and suitable.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister keeps saying “private schools”, but we are talking about independent educational institutions. As I understand it, that includes academy schools, which are state schools.

The Minister also keeps talking about proportionality. Proposed new subsection (2B) states that, for the purposes of proposed new subsection (2)(g), the Secretary of State would have to be notified of any change to either “part of a building” or a “permanent outdoor structure”. If a school wanted to build a bike shed, it would potentially have to go to the Secretary of State. That does not seem proportionate at all. Perhaps the Minister can answer that point.

[Stephen Morgan]

I assure the shadow Minister that the provision does apply to academies, so I thank him for raising that point. Clauses 33 and 35 make important changes to our material change regime, so I hope the Committee agrees that they should stand part of the Bill.

[Neil O’Brien]

I wish to press the amendment to a vote. The Minister has confirmed that the provision applies to academy schools. It is not proportionate—to use the Minister’s term—to require the Secretary of State to be informed of a state school changing part of a building, or building a permanent outdoor structure. A school that put up a gazebo would have to go to the Secretary of State. That is not proportionate; it is an error. The rest of the clause is totally reasonable, but on this point it is unreasonable, so I want to press the amendment to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

We will consider these matters extremely closely as we progress the Bill further. I will take that point away to officials. With regard to the hon. Gentleman’s question about bankruptcy, the Teaching Regulation Agency considers only cases involving allegations of the most serious misconduct. Cases of misconduct that are not serious enough to warrant a lifetime prohibition from teaching and all cases of incompetence are more appropriately dealt with by employers at the local level. I commend the clause to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 39 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 40

School teachers’ qualifications and induction

[Neil O'Brien]

I beg to move amendment 73, in clause 40, page 99, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) The requirement in subsection (1)(a) only applies after a person has been carrying out such work in a school for five years.’”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 74, in clause 40, page 99, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Where a person was carrying out such work at the time of the passing of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2025, the requirement in subsection (1)(a) does not apply.’”

Amendment 75, in clause 40, page 99, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Where a person is carrying out such work for the purposes of teaching a shortage subject, the requirement in subsection (1)(a) does not apply.

(1B) For the purposes of this section, “shortage subject” means any subject in relation to which the Department for Education’s recruitment targets for initial teacher training have been missed in the most recent year for which such statistics exist.’”

Amendment 76, in clause 40, page 99, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Where a person is carrying out such work in an academy school, the requirement in subsection (1)(a) does not apply where the condition in subsection (1B) is met.

(1B) The condition is that—

(a) the individual is employed by the proprietor of an academy;

(b) the proprietor of the academy is satisfied that the individual has sufficient expertise to enable them to undertake such work appropriately; and

(c) the proprietor will provide the individual with appropriate training, support and guidance to ensure that they are able to undertake such work appropriately.’”

This amendment allows academies to maintain discretion about whether to employ teachers without QTS if they are subject matter experts and have received training from the academy.

Amendment 94, in clause 40, page 99, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section must have regard to—

(a) the availability of qualified teachers in each school subject, and

(b) the necessity or desirability of specific sectoral expertise for teachers in each school subject’”.

This amendment 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.

Clause stand part.

[Neil O'Brien]

Sir Martyn Oliver gave us a good example of how the current freedoms are used on our first day of evidence. He said:

“In the past, I have brought in professional sportspeople to teach alongside PE teachers, and they have run sessions. Because I was in Wakefield, it was rugby league: I had rugby league professionals working with about a quarter of the schools in Wakefield at one point.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 49, Q108.]

When he said that, I thought about when I was being taught rugby league not far away in Huddersfield, and how much we would have loved it if the professionals had come from Fartown to teach us. We were never told what the rules of rugby league were, nor was it revealed to us that there was a different type of rugby. It would have been amazing to have the professionals with us. That is just one example of how schools use non-qualified teacher status teachers in a brilliant way to bring in people who would otherwise never be in state schools.

Former headteacher David Thomas told us on the same day:

“I have concerns about limiting the number of people with unqualified teacher status who are not working towards qualified teacher status.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 92, Q199.]

He also said:

“I have worked with some fantastic people—generally late-career people in shortage subjects who want to go and give back in the last five to 10 years of their career—who would not go through some of the bureaucracy associated with getting qualified teacher status but are absolutely fantastic and have brought wonderful things to a school and to a sector. I have seen them change children’s lives.”––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2025; c. 92, Q200.]

Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Primary Headteachers Association gave another good example, telling us:

“I had to step in as an interim headteacher in Ipswich just prior to covid. I did not have an early years lead… There was someone who was not a qualified teacher, but who had been running an outstanding nursery… I took her on, and although she was not qualified, she was really excellent. I was able to do that because it was an academy school, and it was not an issue. In a maintained school, there is a specific need for a qualified teacher to teach in early years, so I would not have been able to take her on.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 83, Q174.]

Likewise, when I asked Julie McCulloch from the Association of School and College Leaders whether it was better to have a non-QTS teacher than no teacher, she noted that

“sometimes that is the case, particularly when we are looking at vocational subjects at the top end of secondary school and into colleges.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 22, Q44.]

When the Secretary of State was asked about this on “The News Agents” last night, she made exactly the same point. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill says that

“some schools may struggle to find the teachers that they need”

as a result of the measure. It adds:

“From September 2026, we estimate this could affect around 700-1,250 potential entrants to the teaching profession per annum…This represents around 1-2% of all entrants to the teaching workforce in…2022.”

The only phrase I take issue with in that is “to the teaching profession”, because it is not the teaching profession as a whole but state schools that those potentially brilliant teachers will be locked out of. Private schools will not have the same burden put on them.

In attempting to construct an argument for that restriction, the impact assessment also says:

“Evidence suggests that being taught by a high-quality teacher can add almost half a GCSE grade per subject to a given pupil’s results”.

Obviously, we all know that high-quality teachers are key in education, but amazingly, the Department for Education does not go on to produce a single shred of evidence—it does not even attempt to give a tiny particle of evidence—that teachers without QTS are of low quality. When Ministers have been pressed on that, they do not demur; a policy is being adopted without any evidence at all.

There is also no estimate of what impact the creation of a new barrier to entry might have, particularly in the sorts of subject area that non-QTS teachers are employed in, which are often those that are more difficult to recruit for. Even the Government sort of acknowledge that the measure is not needed, as we find out by reading a footnote at the bottom of page 24 of the impact assessment, which was published halfway through the Bill Committee process. It is like “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”; the plans are available if we go to a locked toilet in an abandoned room on the bottom floor of a building that is open twice a year. The footnote reveals that:

“Unqualified teachers will not require QTS to work in further education, 14–19 and 16-19 academies, university technical colleges, studio schools and non-maintained school early years settings.”

My first question to the Minister is, if it is so desperately important to ban non-QTS teachers from our schools that we have to make primary legislation to do it, why are all those other types of school not included? How many non-QTS teachers are in those settings and will therefore be exempt?

Last month, data came out showing that the Government had recruited only 62% of their target number of students into initial teacher training for secondary schools, with particularly dramatic shortfalls in subjects such as physics, where only 30% of the target number had been recruited, business studies, design and technology, music, computing and chemistry. The National Education Union rightly talks about a

“global teacher recruitment and retention crisis”.

Most school systems across the world are battling to recruit teachers; if anyone googles “teacher shortage Ireland” or “teacher shortage Australia”—or “teacher shortage” pretty much anywhere—they will see what I mean.

Between 2011 and 2022, the last Government added 29,454 extra teachers to schools in England and grew the total school workforce by 96,555, or 11%. yet we still have a shortage of teachers in key subjects. About 3% of teachers are non-QTS, so this might seem like an odd time to make things harder for schools to recruit good teachers, especially in the specialist subjects where they tend to be used. To that end, our amendments seek to at least limit those counterproductive new restrictions, which have received a wide variety of criticisms from the sector. Amendment 73 proposes in a five-year grace period, because not requiring QTS can get teachers through the door into state education.

What message does the Government measure send to people who are mid-career, who might want to become teachers and give back but who cannot actually afford to do a PGCE or an apprenticeship? The Government’s plan will grandfather non-QTS teachers, but if they move school, they will have to get QTS. Amendment 74 would allow mobility and fix that. Amendment 75 would retain the freedom at least for shortage subjects; amendment 94, in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham, also looks at that issue. Amendment 76 would allow academies to maintain discretion about whether to employ teachers without QTS if they are subject matter experts and have received training from the academy in question.

The bottom line is: where is the evidence—any evidence—that this is a problem in our education system, never mind one of the most important problems that we need to make primary legislation to resolve? Where is the evidence that DFE Ministers know better who to employ than school leaders themselves? They have not produced a single shred of evidence in the impact assessment.

I am afraid that this measure is another example of Ministers believing that they know best, but it will make recruitment challenges harder, create a barrier to entry into state schools, and prevent some great sports people, IT people and other people who want to give back from doing so. The unions may want this—they have for years—but it remains a mistake.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member has twice referred to professional sportspeople, and the quote he read out at the beginning of his speech mentioned their contributing “alongside” teachers. Does he acknowledge that there is no prohibition on professional sportspeople or other experienced, inspiring professionals contributing alongside teachers? The issue is when they do so without that input. I kindly invite the hon. Member to correct that point.

[Neil O'Brien]

The hon. Lady has completely missed the point. This clause means that academy schools will no longer be able to employ people without QTS to do exactly the kind of inspiring things that Sir Martyn, at the start of our first evidence session, said he had used them so brilliantly to do.

[Catherine Atkinson]

The quote was “alongside” teachers. Having people there alongside teachers is not prohibited. I am sure that the Minister will clarify that matter if I am mistaken.

[Neil O'Brien]

To be clear, it will be illegal to employ them if they do not have QTS. People can turn up, but they cannot be employed. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is deliberately trying to muddy the water, or whether she has just missed the point. I notice that the Minister has not chosen to intervene. To be clear, the clause will stop Sir Martyn and people like him doing exactly what he said he had found it useful to do: employing non-QTS teachers, alongside teachers, to come and give back to their community.

During the course of my remarks, nobody has offered me a single shred of evidence that non-QTS teachers are bad teachers, are somehow a big problem in our schools, or are one of the top problems that we need to address. The clause will make things harder for schools, and it will mean that fewer pupils get a good lesson. Our amendments aim to stop this piece of vandalism, which is something that the unions wanted, that Ministers have given them, and that will be bad for our schools and our children.

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston talked about bottom lines and evidence. At the moment, the attainment gap between those who achieve and those who do not is widening across our country. For a number of years, and since the previous Government—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire was in fact—

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I agree with the hon. Lady 100%, just as I agreed with what the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said entirely. Of course, there is not just a material difference between not being a qualified teacher and being a qualified teacher. It is like night and day, and what teachers learn about pedagogy and the experience they get during that time cannot be replicated on an online course or by reading books. She is right, too, that during covid millions of people up and down the country quite rightly developed, renewed or enhanced their respect for the teaching profession and for what teaching is capable of doing.

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I did say, “One last time,” but I cannot refuse my hon. Friend.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I thank my right hon. Friend, and I completely agree with him about the respect due to teachers. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North mentioned a “race to the bottom”, yet that is not what the Secretary of State is saying, and there is no evidence in any of what the Government are doing that there is a problem with the quality of non-QTS teachers. Indeed, we heard from Rebecca Leek at the start of our proceedings that it was a race to the top. She was getting one of the best people—she happened to be running a nursery and had not gone into teaching; but she knew all about the early years and was one of the best people one could possibly get, even though she was non-QTS. Another hon. Member on this Committee has said that there was “no reason” not to get QTS, but in many cases, there are reasons. Perhaps someone is at the very end of their career and is not going to go through all the bureaucracy to do that, in order to do the last two years of—[Interruption.] It was said—

[The Chair]

Order. Committee Members may speak as often as they like, so interventions need to be very short.

[Neil O’Brien]

To finish the point, sometimes there are reasons. Sometimes people want to give back; but by making it harder for them to go to state schools, it is state schools that will miss out—not independent schools or others.

[Damian Hinds]

The points that the hon. Members for Southampton Itchen and for Morecambe and Lunesdale made lead me to—you will be pleased to know, Sir Edward—the concluding section of my remarks, which is to pose the same question that all Opposition Members have posed: why? What is driving this? As with so many other aspects of the Bill—we heard about in the evidence sessions on day one—what is the problem we are trying to solve?

So I did a little research. I wondered—after 14 dark years of Conservatives in government, people being able to recruit teachers willy-nilly, a race to the bottom, blah, blah, blah—how huge the proportion had become of the teaching workforce without qualified status, which is something that Government Members, I and all of us know has such huge value, but which can also be complemented by people with other types of expertise and experience, who may help to augment those brilliant teachers with their qualified teacher status. What do you suppose the proportion was, Sir Edward?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

I would like to understand whether the classes that are covered by teaching assistants and cover supervisors are included in the ratio of qualified or unqualified teachers, because things happen on a daily basis in our classrooms, and teachers are not always registered as the registered teacher—they might be covering a class or they might be a teaching assistant who has been asked to step up. I was asked why, and I was not able to answer at the beginning, but the Government still believe that the answer to the “Why?” question is that we need to ensure that all our children are taught by qualified teachers to get the best education. During the early 2010s, the gap across all school stages began to gradually close, but the attainment gap has since widened, with 10 years of progress wiped out—that is from a February 2024 Sutton Trust report.

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Lady says that all of our pupils deserve a QTS teacher, so why are the Government exempting those in further education, 14 to 19 and 16 to 19, academies, university technical colleges, studio schools, non-maintained schools and early years settings? If it is so desperately important, why are they exempting the settings that have more non-QTS teachers? The hon. Lady thinks that is a mistake, presumably.

[The Chair]

Is the hon. Lady going to respond?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

If the hon. Gentleman were a parent at an FE college, would he have the same expectation, and does he understand why all these other schools are exempt?

[David Baines]

In an ideal situation, of course I want whoever is teaching my children to be qualified, and I do not think that is an unfair expectation.

Going back to a point that has been made, we have heard that that is already the situation in maintained schools. To bring what may be the conclusion of the debate back to its start by mentioning the rugby league—which I am very happy to talk about for many hours, if anyone will indulge me—in my constituency of St Helens North, our rugby league club does outstanding work across the community including in both maintained and academy schools, with children across the borough getting access to high-quality sports coaching. That will not change. At maintained schools across the country, pupils have access to specialist adults coming in and teaching them all sorts of things in the presence of qualified teachers as well. That will not change. This is about high expectations. Like the debate we had about branded items, most parents and families listening to this will be absolutely baffled at the Opposition and at how much time we are spending talking about something that, to most parents, should be a standard expectation —that the people teaching their children are qualified.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

You’re not.

[Neil O’Brien]

Straw man.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It has been referred to as a bureaucratic hurdle a number of times during this debate, which I think those in the teaching profession will find remarkable, as well as parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North said.

Amendment 73 could also lead to some unqualified teachers either leaving the profession or moving to another school before the five-year deadline that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston suggests, rather than gaining the training and support to which all teachers should be entitled. That would risk having a negative impact on both the quality of teaching and the retention of teachers. We recognise that schools will still need some flexibility, so we are updating regulations to clarify that schools will still be able to recruit an unqualified teacher. Those teachers will have three terms to secure a place on an appropriate route to qualified teacher status, which will ensure that schools’ recruitment processes for teachers are not held up in any way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

They will be updated to apply to the academies sector.

Turning to amendment 74, I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to ensure that the clause does not impact the working arrangements of unqualified teachers already working in academies. We agree that the requirement should not impact existing employment arrangements in academies, but we need to do that in a way that does not inadvertently affect the way that legislation already applies to local authority maintained schools and special schools.

We will, subject to the passage of the Bill, provide an exemption in regulations for any teacher who commences their employment with an academy school or trust prior to September 2026. Those teachers who move to another employer after that date will need to obtain qualified teacher status. We will set out an exemption in regulations for teachers who are employed to teach in a primary or secondary academy setting. That will mean that we are able to provide schools with reasonable time to prepare for any necessary changes to their recruitment procedures following changes to primary legislation.

On amendments 75 and 94, I recognise the challenges around teacher recruitment that we have inherited. However, the solution should not be to embed lower standards for shortage subjects in primary legislation. The amendments would create uncertainty for schools and teachers, as the teachers that schools employ could move in and out of the requirement to hold qualified teacher status depending on each year’s initial teacher training recruitment data. They would also change the requirements for qualified teacher status in local authority maintained schools and special schools, which are already required to employ teachers with qualified teacher status.

Under clause 40, schools will continue to be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status for any subject and then support those teachers to gain qualified teacher status through an appropriate route.

[Neil O’Brien]

It seems to me that the Government recognise the importance of pragmatism and that that is why they have chosen to exempt FE, 14-to-19 academies, 16-to-19 academies, university technical colleges, studio schools and non-maintained early years settings, and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. I put it to her that the same argument that has caused Ministers to pragmatically exclude those types of schools is perhaps also an argument for excluding shortage subjects.

[Catherine McKinnell]

As the hon. Member is aware, qualified teacher status is the professional qualification for teachers in primary and secondary schools. Currently, it applies to local authority maintained schools and special schools. Under these proposals, it will apply to all primary and secondary state-funded schools in England. As he is aware, there are currently some exceptions to that in legislation. Those exceptions will continue to apply as the requirement is applied to the academy sector.

On the second part of the hon. Member’s question—

[Neil O’Brien]

The second part of my question was about the settings the Minister has chosen to exclude—let us be clear that this is a new exclusion from a new rule. They are settings where the share of non-QTS teachers is typically higher. We are still looking for the explanation of why some schools are different from others. These are schools with kids of the same age—schools with 14-year-olds—but some will have the new requirement and others will not. I am just trying to get Ministers to explain the logic of that. It seems to be pragmatic: there are not enough QTS teachers in those schools and Ministers do not want to create a problem by applying their new rules to those types of settings, of which there are many. I am just trying to make the same point about shortage subjects. I do not know if the Minister can see the connection.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I wonder if it would be helpful if I finished my comments, and then I will be more than happy to come back to the hon. Gentleman’s question if I have not answered it. I am currently responding to the amendments tabled by various Members, and then I will set out the rationale for clause 40. I would be more than happy to answer specific questions at the end if I have not anticipated them, which I hope to do.

Under clause 40, schools will continue to be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status for any subject and then support those teachers to gain qualified teacher status through an appropriate route. We are updating the regulations to clarify that they will have three terms to secure a place on an appropriate route to QTS. We believe that will give schools adequate flexibility for circumstances in which they need to recruit a subject expert who does not have qualified teacher status, but can be on a route to gaining it under these requirements.

We are focused on ensuring that we have enough qualified teachers available for schools. Obviously, the best recruitment strategy is retention, and that starts with making sure that teachers who are currently teaching have access to high-quality training and induction support. We have a range of measures beyond the Bill to address the recruitment and retention of teachers in shortage subjects, including a targeted retention incentive, worth up to £6,000 after tax, for mathematics, physics, chemistry and computing teachers in the first five years of their careers who choose to work in disadvantaged schools.

I have considered amendment 76, in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, but amending clause 40 in that way would build a loophole into the changes that the clause seeks to make, so the amendment effectively seeks to remove the clause. Clause 40 demonstrates our commitment to qualified teacher status and the professional status of teaching. High-quality teaching is the most important in-school factor for improving outcomes for all children. Great teachers need subject expertise, but they also need to understand how children learn, how to adapt age-specific approaches, and how to adapt their teaching to children in their class with a range of different needs.

This Bill will continue to raise standards. It builds on reforms made by previous Governments, who ensured that the essential knowledge associated with great teaching is incorporated into all primary and teacher training. We want to ensure that new teachers have the benefit of that knowledge, whichever type of school they work in. For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Clause 40 will help us break down barriers to opportunity by making sure that new teachers are prepared for a successful teaching career through high-quality, regulated initial teacher training, followed by statutory induction to support their professional development. It will reaffirm the professional status of teaching and emphasise the importance of high-quality teaching for children’s outcomes.

Academies will need to ensure that new teachers entering the classroom have or are working towards qualified teacher status, followed by the completion of statutory induction. The qualified teacher status requirement will ensure that new teachers and experienced educators moving from other settings are supported to have long-term, successful teaching careers and are in the best possible position to have an impact on children’s life chances. It will not apply to any teacher who was recruited and employed before the implementation date, unless they move to a different employer. That will minimise any disruption to current academy employment arrangements.

The clause will ensure that teachers who gain qualified teacher status after the implementation date complete statutory induction so that they receive a programme of support that ensures that they meet standards and are well trained at the start of their careers. It will bring academies in line with maintained schools and will standardise the approach across state-funded schools for new teachers to the classroom to have or be working towards qualified teacher status, and to complete statutory induction.

I hope that answers the question about why we are doing this. To allay the concerns that have been raised, let me say that the exemptions that are currently in place for maintained schools will remain and will be extended to academies. I hope that answers that question.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I was going to answer some more specific questions, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to put his question again so that I appreciate what it is.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister talks about maintaining or continuing with various things but, to be clear, the clause will introduce a new exemption. This is not just about later phases of education; it is about children in normal secondary schools. The Government have chosen to exempt further education, 14-to-19 academies, 16-to-19 academies, UTCs, studio schools and non-maintained school early years settings. There are a heck of a lot of state schools that are being exempted from the things that the Ministers say are so desperately important. I still have not heard the reason why, if they are so important, they do not apply to them, too.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I have been pretty clear that we are basically bringing to the state school academy sector the same requirements that currently apply to the local authority maintained school sector and to special schools.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister says “ to the…academy sector”, but she is not doing it to 14-to-19 academies, to 16-to-19 academies, or to UTCs and studio schools, which are both types of academy. It is not, as she says, all academies; it is only some, and I do not know why.

[Catherine McKinnell]

High-quality teaching is available for those who want to teach in further education settings or early years settings. Early years teacher status is available for those wishing to specialise in teaching babies and young children. There is an optional professional status, qualified teacher learning and skills status, available to further education teachers. None of those things are the subject of this Bill, which deals specifically with primary and secondary schools in the state sector, including local authority maintained schools, special schools and academies.

There is a range of city technology colleges, studio schools and university technical colleges that offer a particular curriculum or focus in some respect on a particular artistic, technical or vocational education. We want to ensure that they have the flexibility that they require to employ specialist teachers with a range of expertise, knowledge and experience to deliver that education effectively.

The intention of the clause is to extend the already well-functioning qualified teacher status in the maintained sector to all primary and secondary schools so that parents know that their child has a core offer—it is not just about qualified teacher status; it is about the national curriculum, which we will get on to, and I am sure we will have additional debate on the teacher pay floor and conditions—and teachers who work in state primary and secondary schools, whether they are a maintained schools or academy schools, know that there is a core offer for them to work in that environment. The purpose of the clause is to provide clarity about what both a teacher and a parent can expect from a school.

I can go into more detail on specific points that hon. Members have made, but I believe I have covered most outstanding queries. I will leave it there, unless hon. Members have specific issues that they feel I have not addressed.

[Neil O’Brien]

I wish to press our amendment 75. To explain that briefly, across the public sector, be it in the civil service, the police or social work, we are trying to make it easier for talented people to come in from the outside, yet in this field we are moving in exactly the opposite direction. The Government are offering pragmatism in some fields, but not in the case of shortage subjects. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 73, but I am keen to press our amendment 75.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 75, in clause 40, page 99, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Where a person is carrying out such work for the purposes of teaching a shortage subject, the requirement in subsection (1)(a) does not apply.

(1B) For the purposes of this section, “shortage subject” means any subject in relation to which the Department for Education’s recruitment targets for initial teacher training have been missed in the most recent year for which such statistics exist.’”—(Neil O’Brien.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

We move on to new clause 53, tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. Removing the entitlement to a high-quality core curriculum for all children by allowing schools, whether they are maintained or academies, to deviate from the national curriculum, could create an unequal system where the content of a child’s core education varies widely.

Let us be clear that what we are talking about: a requirement to teach the national curriculum does not create a ceiling; it does not force schools to teach in a particular way or prevent them from adapting or innovating, and it does not stop them adding extra content that works for their pupils. It simply says that, as a nation, this is the core knowledge and skills that we expect schools to teach their pupils, whatever their background. New clause 53 would allow a school to decide not to teach its pupils some important core content that all other children are being taught. We do not think that parents want their children’s school to be able to do that. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.

The hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich also tabled new clause 54. The national curriculum is the cornerstone of the education system. We are reforming it and extending it to cover academies to ensure that every child, regardless of their background or the school they attend, receives the best possible core education. I have set out already why allowing schools to opt out of the national curriculum creates a risk of an unequal system, where not all children can benefit from a strong foundation of the reformed curriculum and what it will provide, so I will focus on the additional elements in the new clause, particularly the Ofsted certifications.

There are unanswered questions about how this provision would work in practice. We have moved from single headline judgments in Ofsted inspections, but the new clause seeks to create a single judgment that would have a material impact on a school for the next decade. The fact that a school offered a broad and balanced curriculum, as all schools must, at some point in the previous 10 years does not mean that it currently does or will do in the future if it chooses not to follow the national curriculum. If, subsequently, Ofsted found the school’s curriculum was not up to scratch, the school would have the disruption and cost of suddenly having to teach the national curriculum again. Allowing more schools to deviate from the national curriculum just as we are reforming it creates a risk that some pupils will not be taught the core knowledge and skills that every young person deserves to be taught. I again invite the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.

New clause 65 was tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Ensuring that schools can adapt their teaching to unique contexts and circumstances is clearly important, but the current framework already provides the flexibility that schools need and value. The national curriculum subject programmes of study already give schools the flexibility to tailor the content and delivery of the curriculum to meet the needs of their pupils and to take account of new developments, societal changes or topical issues. The reformed national curriculum will help to deliver the Government’s commitment to high and rising standards, supporting the innovation and professionalism of teachers while ensuring greater attention to breadth and flexibility. The proposed core framework would add significant extra complexity to the national curriculum, which already has core and foundation subjects, and would risk being confusing for schools. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

New clause 54 would allow academies to continue to exercise freedom in the matter of their curriculum where Ofsted is satisfied that the curriculum is broad and balanced. New clause 53 would allow ongoing curriculum freedom in academies where it is needed in the interests of improving standards. New clause 44 would extend academy freedoms to local authority maintained schools, allowing them to offer a curriculum that is different from the national curriculum, as long as it is broad and balanced and certified by Ofsted.

The imposition on all schools of the—currently being rewritten—national curriculum was raised in our evidence session right at the start of this Bill Committee. As Nigel Genders, the chief education officer of the Church of England noted:

“The complexity is that this legislation is happening at the same time as the curriculum and assessment review, so our schools are being asked to sign up to a general curriculum for everybody without knowing what that curriculum is likely to be.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 64.]

There is a parallel here in that we are also being asked to sign up to sweeping reforms to the academies order at the same time as the Government are changing the accountability framework, as the hon. Member for Twickenham correctly pointed out in the Chamber yesterday. Several school leaders gave us good examples showing why it is a mistake to take away academy freedoms to vary from the national curriculum. As Sir Dan Moynihan, the leader of the incredibly successful Harris Federation, explained to us:

“We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects. Of course, that is subject to Ofsted. Ofsted comes in, inspects and sees whether what you are doing is reasonable.

“That flexibility has allowed us to widen the curriculum out again later and take those schools on to ‘outstanding’ status. We are subject to Ofsted scrutiny. It is not clear to me why we would need to follow the full national curriculum. What advantage does that give? When we have to provide all the nationally-recognised qualifications—GCSEs, A-levels, SATs—and we are subject to external regulation by Ofsted, why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 72.]

Luke Sparkes, from the also very successful Dixons Academies Trust, argued that:

“we…need the ability to enact the curriculum in a responsive and flexible way at a local level. I can see the desire to get that consistency, but there needs to be a consistency without stifling innovation.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 79.]

Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Primary Headteachers’ Association told us:

“Anything that says, ‘Well, we are going to go slightly more with a one-size-fits-all model’—bearing in mind, too, that we do not know what that looks like, because this national curriculum has not even been written yet—is a worry. That is what I mean. If we suddenly all have to comply with something that is more uniform and have to check—‘Oh no, we cannot do that’, ‘Yes, we can do that’, ‘No, we can’t do that’, ‘Yes, we can do that’—it will impede our ability to be agile”. ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 83.]

The Minister talked about Chesterton’s fence and gave us some lessons in Conservative history and philosophy, but I point her to the same argument: this is an example of Chesterton’s fence. These freedoms and flexibilities are there for a reason. They are there to defend us against the inflexibility of not being able to do what Sir Dan Moynihan needs to do to turn around failing schools. It is no good us saying, “Here is the perfect curriculum. Let’s go and study this incredibly advanced subject” if the kids cannot read or add up. This is a very powerful point that school leaders are making to us, one which I hope Ministers will take on board.

Since the Minister referred to a bit of Conversative history and Ken Baker’s creation of the national curriculum in the 1980s, she will of course be aware that there was a huge debate about it and a lot of concern, particularly from Mrs Thatcher, about what many described as the “nationalised curriculum”. There was concern that it would get out of hand, become too prescriptive, too bureaucratic and too burdensome. That debate will always be there, and the safety valve we have at the moment is that never since its instigation have all schools had to follow the national curriculum. Even though academies did not exist then, city technology colleges did and they did not have the follow the national curriculum. This is the first time in our whole history that every single school will have to follow it.

In relation to previous clauses, I have spoken about getting away from the dead hand of compliance culture and moving toward an achievement and innovation culture—a culture of freedom—in our schools. Pupils at Michaela Community School made the greatest progress in the whole country three years in a row—an incredible achievement—and they did that by having an incredibly distinctive and knowledge-intensive curriculum that was completely their own. Its head, Katharine Birbalsingh, has argued in an open letter to the Secretary of State:

“Clearly there needs to be a broad academic core for all children. But a rigid national curriculum that dictates adherence to a robotic, turgid and monotonous programme of learning that prevents headteachers from giving their children a bespoke offer tailored to the needs of their pupils, is quite frankly, horrifying. Anyone in teaching who has an entrepreneurial spirit, who enjoys thinking creatively about how best to address the needs of their pupils, will be driven out of the profession. Not to mention how standards will drop! High standards depend in part on the dynamism of teachers. Why would you want to kill our creativity?

Then there is the cost. Your curriculum changes will cost schools time and money. Do you have any idea of the work required from teachers and school leaders to change their curriculum? You will force heads to divert precious resources from helping struggling families to fulfil a bureaucratic whim coming from Whitehall. Why are you changing things? What is the problem you are trying to solve?”

That is a good question; perhaps the Minister can tell us the answer.

Nor is it just school leaders who are raising concerns about this clause. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum was “of particular concern” to her. Our three new clauses reflect what school leaders have told us. We think the clause is fundamentally a bad idea, but we are trying to find a compromise.

New clause 53 responds to Sir Dan Moynihan’s point that freedom to vary from the national curriculum can be really important in turnaround situations: we cannot succeed in other things if children are unable first to read and write. New clause 54 allows freedom where schools are delivering a broad and balanced curriculum. That worries Ministers, although we heard from the head of Ofsted the other day that schools are delivering a broad and balanced curriculum, so once again it is not clear what problem Ministers are trying to solve. We do not learn the answer from the impact assessment either. If this is just about ensuring that all schools have the same freedoms, new clause 54 would give local authority schools the same freedoms as academies, but that is not what the Government are proposing.

I hope the Minister will tell us at some point what problem she is trying to solve. Where is the evidence of abuse? There is none in the impact assessment, and Ministers have not produced any at any point so far in the process. The Government’s impact assessment says that schools

“may need to hire additional or specialist teachers for any subjects not currently delivered or underrepresented in existing curricula”,

that they may need to make adjustments in their facilities, resources and materials to meet the national curriculum standards, and that they may need “additional or specialised training” to deliver the new national curriculum. It says:

“some academies may be particularly affected if their current curriculum differs significantly from the new national curriculum”.

Unfortunately, the impact assessment does not put any numbers on the impact. Will the Minister commit clearly and unambiguously to meet the costs, including for facilities, for any schools that have to incur costs as a result of this measure?

The Minister talked about Jim Callaghan’s famous phrase, his reference to a “secret garden”. We will come on to that on a later new clause, when we will advance the case against secret lessons in relationships, health and sex education. I hope the Minister will be as good as her word; I hope she is against the secret garden in that domain. On these new clauses, we hope the Minister will listen to the voices of school leaders, her own colleagues and people who are concerned about clause 41, and tell us what the problem is that the Government are trying to solve. The Government clearly like the idea of everything being the same—they like imposing the same thing on every school in the country—but what is the problem? Where is the evidence that this needs to happen? Why are Ministers not listening to serious school leaders who have turned around a lot of schools, who say that they need this freedom to turn around schools that are currently failing kids? Why do Ministers think they know better than school leaders who have already succeeded in turning around failing schools?

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. In the light of the discussion that we had before lunch, I want to put on the record that those who are questioning these measures—certainly on the Liberal Democrat Benches—are not trying to attack standards. We recognise that, like qualified teachers, the national curriculum is a very good thing for our children. It is important that children and young people have a common core. None the less, I come back to the question that I posed earlier and the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston just posed again: what is the problem that Ministers are trying to fix with clause 41?

In oral evidence, His Majesty’s chief inspector of schools, Sir Martyn Oliver, told us that there is very little evidence that academy schools are not teaching a broad and balanced curriculum. He said:

“the education inspection framework that we currently use significantly reduced the deviation of academies because it set out the need to carry out a broad and balanced curriculum…I would always want to give headteachers the flexibility to do what is right for their children”. ––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 50, Q113.]

Given the Ofsted framework, given that our primary schools are preparing children to sit their standard assessment tests, and given that secondary schools are preparing pupils for a range of public examinations, not least GCSEs, all of which have common syllabuses, the reality on the ground is that most schools do not deviate very much from the national curriculum.

On the other hand, during the oral evidence sessions we heard that school leaders have sometimes used the freedom to deviate where children have fallen behind as a result of disadvantage, trauma, the covid pandemic or other reasons, to ensure they reach the required level to be able to engage in that broad and balanced curriculum. I ask Ministers: if an 11-year-old is struggling to read and write, does it make sense to expect them to access the full history, geography and modern languages curriculum immediately at the start of year 7? As much as I would want them to—I say this as a languages graduate who bemoans the death of modern languages in our schools—we cannot expect them to do those things until they have a basic standard of written English.

The Children’s Commissioner spoke powerfully of her own experience. She had to turn a school around by ditching the wider curriculum to get the children up to the required standard before opening up the curriculum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Where to start? I guess I should start by responding to the fundamental question that I think hon. Members are asking: what problem are we trying to solve? Fundamentally, Opposition Members—I do not refer to all of them—do not seem to have a very realistic perspective on the challenges that are very present in the education system. They cite singular examples of schools that are doing a fantastic job and that absolutely should be celebrated, but that is not reflective of the entire system.

Through this Bill and the other reforms we are looking to introduce—I think Opposition Members fundamentally agree with them, but do not wish to say so—we are trying to create a core offer for every child in this country. No matter what type of school they go to, what their background is and where they come from, children will be guaranteed a core, quality educational offer, with qualified teachers and a national curriculum core framework that gives them the basis, yes, of knowledge, but also skills and development as an individual that set them up for life.

It is an absolute myth that maintained schools are unable to innovate while following the national curriculum. The reformed national curriculum will support innovation and professionalism in teachers, and maintain the flexibility that we know is really important if schools are to meet the needs of their children. It is absolutely right that schools can, for example, choose to prioritise English and maths, if that is what their children need. However, that should not be at the expense of curriculum breadth and opportunity for young people who also need extra support.

We want every child in every state school to have a broad range of subjects and to have the opportunity to study a common core of knowledge that has been determined by experts and agreed by Parliament. I absolutely agree that it should be led by experts, which is why we have an independent panel of experts advising on the curriculum and assessment review. I absolutely recognise the strong track record of, for example, Michaela and the good outcomes it delivers for its students. I understand that, as hon. Members have rightly acknowledged, the vast majority of schools do follow the national curriculum.

It is our intention to create a common core framework right across our school system, regardless of the structure of the school. That is all we are trying to achieve with this fairly straightforward measure. To be honest, the attitude that is sometimes displayed and the fears that are being mongered just seem a little hysterical. Every child should have a high-quality education, which is all that we seek to ensure with the measures in the Bill.

[Neil O'Brien]

I read out the very real concerns of serious educational leaders with strong track records. The Minister says that they are hysterical.

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, I did not.

[Neil O'Brien]

Well, she said the concerns are hysterical. They are not my concerns; they are concerns that have been put to this Committee by incredibly respected school leaders. The Minister says that only a few of them are using these freedoms. Well, if it is only a few, why should they not have the freedom to do what they know works? Why do Ministers think they know better? Let me just ask two specific questions. Will UTCs have to follow the curriculum as well, and will all the costs that fall on schools from this measure be met? I ask those questions now, because Ministers may want to get the answers from the Box.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Let me be clear: I have not referred to any academy leaders or professionals in our education system as expressing views that are hysterical. I have referred to hon. Members, and I was very clear about that in my comments. I have seen far too much of that in this Committee—putting words into Members’ mouths. It is not respectful to the people we are here to represent and serve, who are working extremely hard in our school system and contributing constructively to this debate. We are open to feedback, which is why we have two consultations out on a number of the measures being considered as part of our reforms. We absolutely welcome feedback; we welcome challenge. Actually, the level of challenge reflects how important this is to the people who contribute to the discussion and debate. The hysteria I was talking about referred to hon. Members and their characterisation of some of the changes.

For the sake of a reality check, let me just say that in 2022—Members should note these statistics—of primary schools in multi-academy trusts, 64% were good and 15% were outstanding; in single-academy trusts, 67% were good and 27% were outstanding; and in maintained schools, 76% were good and 16% were outstanding. There is no difference for children’s outcomes depending on the school’s status. This is not about academies versus maintained schools or anything like it; it is about making sure that we have a framework that serves every child and that every child has a core offer as part of their education. To treat it like some sort of terrible, terrifying prospect is a mischaracterisation of the reality of both the school system and the changes we are looking to make.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She took the words out of my mouth earlier when she challenged the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. The national curriculum offer and everything we are presenting as part of our reforms provide a floor, but not a ceiling on ambition, innovation, flexibility and the ability to give an outstanding and exemplary education to the children in this country. We celebrate and value success for our children, in whatever form it comes, whether that is an academy or a local authority-maintained school. Indeed, success comes in all those forms.

All we wish to see, through this fairly straightforward measure, is a knowledge-rich education—in answer to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston—and a curriculum that is cutting-edge and that ensures high and rising standards for every child. That is why we launched the curriculum and assessment review to take the advice of experts on bringing the curriculum up to date. It is why we want to see the national curriculum as the experience that every child should have, and the framework that every child should experience throughout their primary and secondary education, regardless of the type of state school that they attend. And it is why we will be asking Members to support clause stand part.

Before the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asks, I will respond to his question on UTCs because—

[Neil O'Brien]

And on whether all the costs will be met.

[Catherine McKinnell]

We recognise the valuable contribution of UTCs in providing a distinctive technical education curriculum. However, we want to ensure that all children have access to a quality core curriculum. The curriculum and assessment review is helping us to make sure we have a broad, enriching curriculum from which every child can benefit. Once it is complete, we will work with UTCs to provide any support they need to implement the changes, because we recognise their particular offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Could I just respond to my hon. Friend’s point? I think the fundamental point he is making is that an obsession with the structure of a school is a distraction from the importance of ensuring the quality and outcomes experienced by the children within it. That is why this Government are focused on ensuring that every school has the fundamentals to provide that opportunity for children, whether that is having qualified teachers in the classroom or a curriculum and assessment framework that sets every child up to thrive. We are focused on ensuring that teachers have a fair pay framework, which we will get on to, and that there is consistency across the board, so that every school in every local community can co-operate—we will also get on to that—to ensure that children in that area, regardless of their background and needs, have the opportunity to thrive and achieve as part of their education.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Academy schools: educational provision for improving behaviour

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Clause 42 will ensure that all mainstream and special state schools are subject to the same regulatory requirements and safeguards when directing pupils off site to improve their behaviour, creating a baseline between academies and maintained schools. Academy schools can already arrange off-site placements through their general powers, and in doing so they already follow the same guidance as maintained schools. However, technically there is inconsistency in the legal framework. Providing academies with the same explicit statutory power and equivalent limits and controls will strengthen the wider efforts to consistently safeguard all pupils and promote educational outcomes. It will also support consistency, scrutiny and transparency against misconduct or malpractice.

In using the power, academies will be required to follow the same statutory requirements as maintained schools, as set out in existing guidance. These include notifying the local authority where a pupil has an education, health and care plan; setting out the objectives of the off-site placement and keeping it under review; and keeping parents fully informed to meet pupils’ needs. I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Academies: power to secure performance of proprietor’s duties etc

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 43, page 102, leave out lines 35 and 36.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 79, in clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “may” to the end of line 3 on page 103 and insert

“exercise their powers under the funding agreement to terminate or require performance of the funding agreement in accordance with its terms.”

Amendment 88, in clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 39 and insert

“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”

This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty.

Amendment 89, in clause 43, page 103, line 2, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 3 and insert

“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”

This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy act unreasonably in respect of the exercise of a relevant power.

Amendment 77, in clause 43, page 103, line 3, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the Secretary of State exercises functions under this section, the Secretary of State must make a statement in the House of Commons which explains the actions taken and the reasons for taking such actions.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament each time the Secretary of State uses the powers in this clause.

Clause stand part.

[Neil O’Brien]

This is a very centralising Bill. We have already talked about what PE kit people should be wearing at school; we have talked about whether schools will now have to apply to the Secretary of State to put up a bike rack. [Laughter.] Ministers laugh, but it is serious. They agreed to a clause just this morning that has that effect.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Nonsense.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is not nonsense. It is your legislation. Sorry, let me correct the record: it is nonsense. This is nonsense legislation that we are being asked to pass.

Now we come on to something really serious that school leaders are warning us about, which is another completely out-of-control piece of centralisation. As drafted, the Bill will create the power for the Secretary of State to direct academy schools to do pretty much anything. Leora Cruddas, of the Confederation of School Trusts, has suggested a way to bring the currently unlimited clause 43 power under some limits:

“We do have concerns about the power to direct. We think it is too wide at the moment. We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we do not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits. Those limits should be around statutory duties on academy trusts, statutory guidance, the provisions in the funding agreement and charity law.”

That is precisely what Opposition amendments 88 and 89 would do. We are not against Ministers having a new power to intervene to get schools to fulfil their duties, but that is different; it is narrower than the current drafting. It may just be that when officials have gone away and tried to turn Ministers’ intentions into legislation, they have gone too far.

David Thomas, a successful headteacher, has made the same point:

“If the purpose is, as it says in the explanatory notes, to issue a direction to academy trusts to comply with their duty, that feels like a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to do. The Bill, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the ability to ‘give the proprietor such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate’. I do not think it is appropriate for a Secretary of State to give an operational action plan to a school, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for a Secretary of State to tell a school that it needs to follow its duty. I think there is just a mismatch between the stated intention and the drafting, and I would correct that mismatch.”

I am not surprised that school leaders are concerned. The Government’s own policy summary notes make it clear that they intend to use the power to reach into schools and intervene on pretty much anything that the Department wants. They give the following example:

“The academy trust has failed to deal with a parental complaint and has not followed its complaints process. Therefore, the issue may be escalated to the Department to consider. In such cases, the Secretary of State could issue a compliance direction to ensure the trust addresses the complaint appropriately”.

It is crystal clear that the Government are taking a power to direct any academy school, without limit, on any issue they see fit. That is such a big move away from the whole idea of the academies programme—the idea of independent state-funded schools.

There are two ways of fixing the problem. Amendments 78 and 79 would simply delete the bit that is excessive, proposed new section 497C(1)(b); amendment 77 would require a statement to be made when the powers are used. Alternatively, amendments 88 and 89—this is, broadly speaking, the suggestion made by the Confederation of School Trusts—would be more incremental reforms. They would retain the text about direction but, in two relevant places, would limit it to

“compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”

The impact assessment for the Bill says that if schools do not comply with the new orders from the Secretary of State, the trustees may be found to be in contempt of court. This charge may come with punishments including fines. It is also possible that, in very extreme cases, individuals found in contempt of court could face a custodial sentence. Helpfully, the assessment says that that should be very rare, but what a long way we have travelled from the whole idea of academies as independent state schools!

That has been the theme as we have gone through the Bill: again and again, we are moving away from a culture of entrepreneurialism, can-do spirit and freedom—going out there and solving problems and making the magic happen for kids—and towards a compliance culture that is all about dealing with what the Secretary of State wants and clicking our heels when they say jump. Since 1988, we have been on a cross-party journey away from micromanagement and towards greater autonomy for schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 48% of schools are local authority-maintained schools? He seems to be denigrating their entire modus operandi in his characterisation of the way non-academies work. They are working hard and are delivering fantastic outcomes for children. We do not denigrate academies; I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so to maintained schools.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is always a bad sign when someone has to misrepresent completely what their opponent is trying to say. Allow me to address that point directly by, once again, reading what Leora Cruddas of the Confederation of School Trusts told the Committee:

“We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we do not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits.” ––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 81, Q169.]

That is what our amendments seek to do.

To take the temperature out of the discussion, let me say that I do not have a problem with the Government having a new power of intervention to cut across their funding agreements with academies—although that is a big step, by the way. My problem is with the completely unlimited nature of the power. I am thinking about the effect of getting away from micromanagement over time. The sixth-form college I went to had become brilliant because it had managed to use the freedoms in the 1992 reforms to take a huge step away from micromanagement, but some of the older teachers there still remembered the days when they had to ring up the town hall if they wanted the heating turned up. Imagine that absurd degree of micromanagement. Terrifyingly, some schools in Scotland are still experiencing that insane degree of micromanagement; teachers there are currently on strike because their concerns about discipline are not being taken seriously, so we can see that freedom has worked in England.

I do not think that this was the intention of the Ministers, but the drafting of the clause is far too sweeping. It gives an unlimited power. I see no reason why the Ministers should not accept the suggestion from the Confederation of School Trusts, which our amendments seek to implement, that we limit that power in certain reasonable ways. It is fine for Ministers to be able to intervene more, but we need some limits. I am sure that the current Secretary of State wants only good things, but a bad future Secretary of State should not be able to do just anything they want.

The Ministers started from a reasonable point of view, but it has gone too far. I hope that they will work with the CST to turn the unlimited power into a limited one. Perhaps they will even accept our amendments, which would do exactly that.

[Munira Wilson]

I was going to say largely the same as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, although I think he was exaggerating slightly in suggesting that the power will lead to local authorities telling schools whether or not they can switch their heating on and off.

[Neil O’Brien]

I did not say that.

[Munira Wilson]

There was that suggestion.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

No, I said that that happened in the ’80s.

[Munira Wilson]

All right. I have a lot of sympathy with amendments 88 and 89, and I agree that the drafting of the clause seems at odds with the explanatory notes. There is a potential overreach of the Secretary of State’s powers over schools, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister can say to temper what is in the Bill. I have no problem ideologically with what I think are the Ministers’ intentions; it is just that the drafting seems to allow a level of overreach and micromanagement from Whitehall, which I think we all wish to avoid.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister mentions a trust that is not complying with its legal duties; I do not think we would have a problem with addressing that, but that is not what is drafted here. As the provision is drafted, the Secretary of State can intervene whenever he or she thinks, in their own eye, that the school is behaving unreasonably. The only appeal the school will have is judicial review. The Minister is saying a lot of sensible stuff, but that is just too much, and I am keen to press amendment 88.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I have already responded to that point, both in my substantive comments and subsequent responses. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Neil O’Brien]

For all the reasons we have just rehearsed, I am keen to push amendment 88. Ministers may well vote against it today, but I hope that later on in the process they will listen to what school leaders are saying. There is a group of amendments, but I intend to push only amendment 88 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 78.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 88, clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 39 and insert

“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”—(Neil O’Brien.)

This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

Repeal of duty to make Academy order in relation to school causing concern

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 44, page 103, leave out from line 25 to line 8 on page 104 and insert—

“(a) in subsection (A1), after ‘measures)’ insert ‘unless the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available’;

(b) after subsection (A1) insert—

‘(A2) Where the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must, within 14 days, publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school and to secure its rapid improvement.

(A3) A plan published under subsection (A2) must include—

(a) the parties with responsibility for the school and its improvement;

(b) the parties who will take action to improve provision in the school;

(c) the resources that will be provided to the relevant parties, including who will provide the resources and when the resources will be provided; and

(d) the intended outcomes of the plan, with the relevant timetables for the outcomes.

(A4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on—

(a) the number of times the Secretary of State has published a plan under subsection (A2);

(b) the resources which have been provided as part of any plans; and

(c) the outcomes of any plans.’”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 81, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (1), insert—

‘(1ZA) The Secretary of State must make an Academy order in respect of a maintained school in England if—

(a) Ofsted has judged the school to require significant improvement; or

(b) a Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence team has judged the school to be significantly underperforming when compared with neighbouring schools with similar demographics.’”

Amendment 82, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (7), insert—

‘(7A) No application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to a decision taken by the Secretary of State to make an Academy order.’”

Amendment 95, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (1A) insert—

‘(1B) Before deciding whether to issue an Academy order in respect of a maintained school, the Secretary of State must issue an invitation for expressions of interest for suitable sponsors.

(1C) The Secretary of State must make an assessment of whether or not to issue an Academy order based on the established track record of parties who responded to the invitation issued under subsection (1B) with an expression of interest in raising school standards.’”

Amendment 96, in clause 44, page 104, line 8, at end insert—

“(10) Before the amendments made by this section come into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—

(a) the mechanisms, including Academy Orders, by which improvement of school standards can be achieved, and

(b) guidance on the appropriate usage of these mechanisms.”

Clause stand part.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Bill ends the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies. That measure was put in place because it became apparent that the most effective way to turn around failing schools at scale was to put them under new management. It also became apparent that when there was a question of discretion and choice, that opened the way for bitterly divisive local campaigns and time-consuming legal action.

The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said on Second Reading:

“I know from bitter personal experience that any change to the status of a school can become highly political. The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 902.]

She also said on the “Today” programme that the end of the academies order will mean that

“the DFE will find itself mired in the high court in judicial review. When we tried to transfer our first failing school to a Harris academy we spent two years in court, and children…don’t have that time to waste.”

Rob Tarn, the chief executive of the Northern Education Trust, has made the same point:

“If there’s no longer a known, blanket reality…There is a risk that, where it’s been determined a school needs to join a strong trust, it will take much longer and we will go back to the early days of academisation when people went to court.”

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I should be predicting which schools go into special measures and which have an Ofsted outcome that requires significant improvement?

[Neil O’Brien]

I am afraid that the Minister is the one making the prediction. It is her consultation document that says that the Government expect that twice as many schools will go through some combination of either RISE or structural intervention. The Government must know, to be able to make the claim—

[Catherine McKinnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way and I will clarify?

[Neil O’Brien]

Just a second. To make the claim that Ministers want to make for all kinds of reasons, they have to know. It is not me who is making the prediction, but them. I just want them to give us the numbers behind it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is conflating the identification of stuck schools that under his Government remained consistently underperforming—about 600 schools, with 312,000 children. The RISE teams will immediately focus on those as the immediate priority for improving outcomes.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am trying to get the Minister to de-conflate her own statistics. The Government want to present the statistic in a deliberately conflated way and I am trying to get it de-conflated. This is the Government’s statistic; I am not offering it. I would like to have some sense from them of how many schools—they must have the figure to make the claim—are going to go through structural interventions so that we can compare the future regime to the previous regime. The Ministers are the ones making the claim that this will intervene on more schools; I am not claiming that. I think it is reasonable to ask for the numbers behind the Government’s own claims, which they did not have to make.

There is an irony behind all this. Ministers have said that they worry about having different types of schools and they want things in the system to be generally more consistent. Currently, the school system is a sort of halfway house: about 80% of secondary schools are now academies, but fewer than half of primaries are—so just over half of state schools are now academies; most academies are in a trust and so on.

In the absence of this Bill we were gradually moving over time, in an organic way, to get to a consistent system based on academies and trusts, which would then at some point operate on the same framework. But the Bill effectively freezes that halfway: it is ending the academisation order and enabling local authorities to open more new schools again. I have never been quite clear about why Ministers want a situation where they do not end up with an organic move to a single system but remain with the distinction between academies and local authority maintained schools, particularly given the drive for consistency elsewhere in the Bill.

In the past, there have been people in the Government who have held anti-academies views, or at least been prepared to bandwagon with anti-academies campaigners on the left. When running for leadership of the Labour party, the Prime Minister said:

“The academisation of our schools is centralising at its core and it has fundamentally disempowered parents, pupils and communities.”

That was not long ago; there he was, on the bandwagon with the anti-academies people.

Likewise, the Deputy Prime Minister said she wanted to stop academy conversion and

“scrap the inefficient free school programme”.

We talked about the evidence that those programmes worked when Labour Members asked for it. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the free schools programme is inefficient, but the average Progress 8 score of a free school is 0.25. That is a fantastic score, getting a quarter of a grade better across all subjects, which is beating the national average. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister thought was so inefficient, but the opposite is the truth. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are not the only ones: the Culture Secretary spoke at an anti-academies conference. The Energy Secretary said that free schools were the last thing we need—but actually, for many kids they are the first. When Ministers in this Government say that they just want more options, and that they are still prepared to fight all the usual suspects to put failing schools under new management—even where left-wing local campaigns are against it—we start from a bit of a sceptical position, because of the relatively recent comments made by senior Ministers.

We do not have to imagine the future. The other day, we saw a choice: we saw a straw in the wind. Glebefields primary school in Tipton was issued with an academy order after being rated less than good twice. The DFE previously told Glebefields that the Education Secretary did not believe the case met the criteria to revoke academisation, despite the change of policy before us. The school threatened legal action and the Secretary of State changed her mind. I worry that there will be many such cases, as well as court cases, and that too many children will find themselves in schools that are failing them, and in need of new management that they will not get.

Ultimately, our amendments seek to limit the damage of this clause, but fundamentally we think that it is a mistake. We worry that, in a few years’ time, Ministers will realise what some of their Back-Bench colleagues already realise: why this clause is a big mistake.

[Munira Wilson]

On clause 44, Liberal Democrats have long supported the position that a failing school, or one that Ofsted has identified as requiring intervention, should not automatically be made an academy. That is our long-standing policy position, so when the Bill was published I welcomed that measure.

However, I felt the need to table amendments because, as I stated yesterday in the Chamber, I was concerned that we were being asked to take away the automatic provision of issuing an academy order without knowing what the school inspection regime would be, and were therefore being asked to legislate in a vacuum. I still think that it is wrong that this legislation started to be considered before we had yesterday’s announcements, but I recognise that the Government have now made them.

I was quite taken, in the oral evidence session, in which we heard from various witnesses, not least by Sir Jon Coles, who said he would like to see what Government policy is underpinning this particular measure, and what the Government’s school improvement policy is. I think the jury is still out on what we heard yesterday, but the fact that we have had a policy announcement negates, to some extent, amendment 95 in my name. It sought to ensure that there was something in place, so that if there were not an automatic academy order, the Secretary of State would invite bids from successful academy trusts that had a track record of turning schools around.

I say to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston that academisation is not a silver bullet. He has enjoyed quoting many times the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who spoke out against her own Front Bench, but she even said herself on Radio 4 in the interview that he cited—which I listened to very carefully on the day it was broadcast—that academisation is not a silver bullet. I have not seen it in my own constituency, but I note that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) pointed out on Second Reading that she worked in areas in the north-west where there were some schools with very vulnerable pupils that had not been improved by being switched from academy trust to academy trust. Clearly, it is not always the correct answer. I therefore think it is important that Ministers set out the whole range of options that are available to ensure that we can turn schools around—and turn them around quickly—because our children deserve the best possible opportunities to flourish and thrive.

Some questions were posed on that yesterday, and I am sure that Ministers will address it over the coming weeks—although I welcome comments today—but, with the RISE teams that are being put in place, the number of advisers is really quite small for the number of schools.

His Majesty’s Opposition have regularly made the point that local authorities do not have the capacity, or the resources, to do school turnarounds. I gently point out to them that it was Conservative Ministers who cut the school improvement grants to local authorities in the last Parliament. I know that because I wrote to Ministers at the time, because in Richmond upon Thames I had representations from our lead for education and children’s services that these important school improvement grants were being cut. We know that school improvement partners in local authorities do important work, particularly with our maintained schools. That capacity was cut away by the previous Government, and will need to be looked at in the new regime.

[Neil O'Brien]

The hon. Lady, in her speech, is talking a lot of sense. I would just point out to her that in the last Parliament, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, per-pupil funding, in real terms, went up by 11%. There will always be constraints. Indeed, the current Ministers have cut the academisation grant and the trust improvement capacity fund, and cut Latin, maths, computing, and physics support; lots of things have been cut. In fairness, schools funding, per pupil, went up a lot faster in the last Parliament than it did in 2010 to 2015, when the hon. Lady’s party was in government. But there are always—[Interruption.]

[Munira Wilson]

I am very happy to respond to that. The hon. Gentleman will know full well—[Interruption.] Sorry; if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make these party political jibes, I am very happy to come back at him on them. In 2010 to 2015, it was the Liberal Democrats in government who made sure that schools’ day-to-day funding was not cut. We were responsible for introducing the pupil premium, which, post 2015, was never uprated.

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Munira Wilson]

In a moment. I will make this point, because I wanted to pick up on it in the oral evidence session when people were asking questions about attainment, but we ran out of time. The pupil premium was a Liberal Democrat front-page manifesto policy in 2010. That was implemented and it has helped disadvantaged pupils. After 2015 it was not uprated in line with inflation, and that is why our disadvantaged children up and down the country are now getting less money, in real terms, to support their education. We have seen a widening attainment gap since covid in particular.

So, I will take no lectures from the Conservative Benches on supporting disadvantaged pupils. It was our policy on free school meals, and our policy on the pupil premium, that came to bear. Actually, it was after 2015 that we saw funding cuts. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston boasted that per-pupil funding was raised; the Conservatives only got it back to 2010 levels by the time they left government in 2024. I am sure that Members across this room, when they visit their schools, will hear stories about the funding pressures.

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Munira Wilson]

I think we are diverging somewhat from the clause and the amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

We absolutely back the academy system; we have been very clear about that. The characterisation of this as anti-academy is quite ridiculous.

[Neil O’Brien]

It was the Prime Minister’s words, not mine.

[Catherine McKinnell]

We greatly value the role of trusts in the school system. Indeed, we recognise the improvements they have brought, particularly for disadvantaged children. We recognise the excellence and innovation seen right across our schools and trusts. As I said earlier, we also recognise that a lot of the capacity to drive improvement across the system exists within those academy trusts, and we will harness that.

Without single headline grades, Ofsted will continue to identify those schools that require significant improvement or are in special measures and it will be able to make judgments to inform the level of support that should be given. If a school in special measures does not have the leadership capacity to improve, the proposal subject to consultation is that it should be immediately moved towards academisation. Where a school does have the leadership capacity to improve, for the next year, while we are building up the capacity of the RISE teams—as I said, 20 began work yesterday, but we recognise we are not up to full capacity yet—it will be issued with an academy order. However, once we have the RISE teams to go in and support the leadership team to drive improvements within those schools, we will put in that support, rather than going straight to an academy order.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, and I agree; there has been far too much of that in this Committee.

[Neil O’Brien]

I literally just read out the Prime Minister’s own words. They are not my words. If he did not want to say them, he did not have to say them. I want to press the Minister, because I can sense that she is starting to wind up. She is talking about how many schools will go through structural intervention—in other words, academisation. The Government have put out a statistic saying that there will be twice as many schools going through RISE and academisation combined over the next three years as there were over the last two years. The Government clearly have a statistic for how many schools they expect to go through academisation, and I am keen that the Minister tell the House what that number is. How many schools do they expect to go through academisation in the next three years? They obviously know.

[Catherine McKinnell]

To be clear, we have identified the 600 schools that require RISE intervention, and that will be mandated—

[Neil O’Brien]

How many will go through academisation?

[Catherine McKinnell]

If I could just finish, that will be mandated intervention for schools that have been consistently underperforming. They are schools that are not part of the previous Government’s procedure for mandating intervention within schools. They are schools that have been sitting just above the mandated intervention procedures but have been consistently underperforming. This is one of the big failures of the previous Government. We have spent a lot of time in the last few days recognising the great successes of many educational reforms over the years, but it is a crying shame that so many schools are still struggling and have not had the support they need to improve over the years.

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

No. The idea that a one-trick-pony approach to improving schools will get the required outcome is simply not borne out by the facts.

I will give a piece of data that might help to illustrate my point. This is in no way a reflection of academies—we absolutely support academies, and we cannot wait to see RISE working with academies to drive great practice and improvements across the system. However, 42% of schools that were placed in special measures or judged as requiring significant improvement in 2023-24 by Ofsted were academies. The idea that simply academising, academising, academising will get the outcomes we need for children is a narrow-minded, inflexible approach that has let far too many children down. We are not willing to put up with that.

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will get on to answering the hon. Gentleman’s question, if he would like me to. He can ask it again or ask another one.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am keen to get a piece of information that the Government have not properly put into the public domain. They clearly know how many schools they expect to go through academisation in the next three years. What is the number? That is all I am looking for.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will need to write to the hon. Gentleman to answer that specific question, as I think it is more complex than he identifies. There are obviously schools that we know are underperforming, and that is where we want to target our resources. Those in special measures and those that require significant improvement will undergo academy conversion over the next 12 months. We probably have the number for that, but ongoing Ofsted inspections will identify new schools that will fall into that category, and they will need to be academised. We cannot predict that, and it would not be fair for us to do so.

We have roughly 312,000 children at schools that we have already identified as struggling schools that are not getting any support or intervention. We are directing targeted, mandated RISE support to them. Clearly, future schools will unfortunately fall into those categories as more Ofsted inspections are undertaken over the next year. I therefore do not have the exact figure as to how many will fall into whichever category.

We obviously hope that schools will benefit from the universal RISE service that we will bring forward to support all schools to improve, regardless of their process. That, however, is part of the consultation; we will look to roll it out in due course.

To be clear on the number of RISE advisers, we recognise that 20 seems like a small number, but they will be the facilitators of a much larger army of school improvement expertise that we know already exists in the system. That will be put together with schools that require support. By April, we will have 50 advisers as we are undertaking a recruitment process to bring in the best of the best for school improvement support. They will not deliver the school improvement but will ensure that school improvement is made available and matched up with schools that need it.

As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire will know, the national leaders of education, who are school improvers, were deployed for a basic 10 days. That was obviously valuable, but RISE will draw on a much broader range of institutional capacity, and it will bring in more than one provider. There will be more help and expertise, and there will be more time and more money. We are not going to waste any time. We are investing in making sure that children do not spend one more day in a school that is not giving them the outcomes they deserve. I hope the Committee will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am keen to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

Amendment 47 would, very simply, make the Secretary of State’s recommendations on pay and conditions a minimum for all schools, whether maintained or academy schools, as the Secretary of State and Ministers have now confirmed was their intention with the Bill. I note that, since I tabled this, new schedule 1 has been tabled. I question why we need a separate order-making power, with all the complexities set out in the new schedule—I am sure the Minister will address that—but I think we are at one in saying that the recommendations should be a floor not a ceiling.

I return once again to the data laid out in the House of Commons Library document on the Bill, which suggests that there is very little variation in pay between maintained schools and academies. Again, I am not 100% sure why we need the new schedule; I just think we should have a floor for all schools. I think it is great that where schools have the means, they are able to pay a premium to attract teachers in shortage subjects, challenging areas or schools that may have had their challenges, but, as we all know, the reality is that most schools are massively strapped for cash—most headteachers and governors I speak to say that. The idea that they are all going to be able to pay a premium is for the birds. None the less, those schools that are able to should absolutely have that freedom.

[Neil O’Brien]

We have been on quite a journey on this clause. At the Education Committee on 15 January, the Secretary of State said that critics of the Bill were confused. She said:

“It has become clear to me that there has been some confusion and some worry about what I have said in this area, so today I want to be absolutely clear that all schools will have full flexibility to innovate with a floor and no ceiling on what that means.”

The fact that, subsequent to that, we have pages and pages of Government amendments to their own Bill suggests pretty powerfully that it was not school leaders and critics of the Bill who were confused.

This is a very significant measure. The impact assessment notes that an Employer Link survey conducted in 2021 found that over 28% of employers varied in some way from the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. Freedoms have been quite widely used. As Sir Jon Coles said in evidence to this Committee, just because people are using the freedoms does not necessarily mean that they know they are using them. Some of the innovations are great—they are things we all want for our teachers and schools. For example, United Learning, Jon Coles’s trust, was paying 6.5% on top of the national pay and conditions to retain good people. Dixons was innovating with a really interesting nine-day fortnight, so that teachers in really tough areas got more preparation time. This is really powerful innovation that we do not want to take away.

The Secretary of State called for a floor not a ceiling and said that she wanted

“that innovation and flexibility to be available to all schools regardless of type.”

We think that is a good principle and we agree about extending it to all schools. That is why our new clause 7 would extend freedoms over pay and conditions to local authority maintained schools as well. Given that the Government said previously that it would be good to have the same freedoms for everybody, we assume that they will accept the new clause so that we can have the floor not a ceiling for everybody, not just academies.

If a floor not a ceiling is right for teachers, surely it is right in principle for the other half of the schools workforce. Surely, school support staff—actually, they are the majority of the workforce in schools—are not worth any less than teachers, and the same principles should apply to them. This is critical. Lots of trusts are using the advantages of scale to make back-office savings and efficiencies, and ploughing them back into additional benefits and pay to support really good staff. I hope that Ministers will support our new clause 64, when we come to it, and accept that the principle that they have applied to teachers should apply to everybody else in our schools, too.

[Ellie Chowns]

I warmly welcome the proposal to ensure that there is a level playing field for pay for teachers who teach in different types of schools. Does the Minister consider that now is the time to take a similar approach to addressing pay for leaders of schools? I found it pretty jaw dropping to hear recently that the pay and pension of a CEO of a well-known multi-academy trust topped £600,000 per year. I took the trouble of having a look at that particular academy trust and found that it has 168 people on salaries of over £100,000, and it covers just 55 schools.

It is clearly not sustainable for the pay of leaders of multi-academy trusts to continue to increase in proportion to the number of schools in those trusts. If that approach was taken to salary setting, the Minister herself would be on millions of pounds a year. We had an interesting discussion earlier about the difference between correlation and causation. There is worrying evidence—I have seen interesting analysis from Warwick Mansell, for example—showing correlation between the prevalence of non-QTS teachers and high pupil-teacher ratios in multi-academy trusts and high levels of executive pay. That strongly suggests that such trusts are diverting or channelling more funding into higher executive pay rather than frontline teaching, which is surely of concern.

While I welcome the moves to ensure equitability across teacher salaries in all types of state school, is it not time to address pay inequalities and excessive pay in certain leadership functions in multi-academy trusts in particular? I note that the Public Accounts Committee drew attention back in 2022 to the DFE not having a handle on executive pay in the sector. I would warmly welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government have any intention to take action to address this.

--- Later in debate ---

Taken together, the measures in the new clause and the changes we intend to make by way of secondary legislation mean that all state school teachers will have a guaranteed minimum pay offer. In a constrained teacher labour market, all schools will have flexibility to attract and retain teachers, and innovations that are making a positive difference can continue and spread.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is generous of the Minister to give way. To address the point that I raised in my speech, does she agree that the principle of a floor but no ceiling should apply to school support staff as well as teachers?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes, I was going to come to that point, because it is welcome that the hon. Gentleman focused on school support staff. He is absolutely right that they are integral to any successful school. However, we do not intend to amend the provisions, because we are legislating for the school support staff negotiating body in the Employment Rights Bill, and we are creating a new system for support in 2025. Rather than try to amend the existing one, we are creating a new negotiating body for them. It makes sense that the outcomes from the new body will apply in same way to all state-funded schools in England.

The primary legislation does not commit us to a one-size-fits-all approach, and so there will be flexibilities for local circumstance to be able to flex above minimum agreement. Again, there will also be a floor but no ceiling for school support staff. We will continue to work with the sector, during and after the passage of the Bill, to ensure that the school support staff negotiating body meets the needs of all school types. The shadow Minister’s intervention and focus on school support staff is absolutely welcome.

In response to the specific question of why we need a separate order-making power, we have clarified the objective by tabling an amendment that requires all academy schools and alternative provision academies to pay their teachers at least the minimum level of pay set out in secondary legislation. Subsequent reforms to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document will ensure there is no ceiling on the maximum that maintained schools can pay for their teachers.

The amendment will also require academies to have regard to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, ensuring an established starting point for all state schools while giving confidence that existing or future changes benefiting teachers and pupils can continue. Maintained schools will continue to follow the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, but the Government are committed to making changes to the document following the Bill’s passage, to remove the ceiling and build in flexibility so that all schools can innovate to attract and retain the best talent.

We absolutely want to ensure that the freedoms that academies have enjoyed will continue. Indeed, they will be extended to maintained schools. In terms of examples used, such as the nine-day week—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am extremely grateful for your flexibility on this matter, Sir Christopher. I have a very short contribution to make on clause 46. It is a minor technical change that sensibly tidies up legal provision that is no longer necessary. The clause repeals section 128 of the Education Act 2002. That section enabled maintained schools in education action zones to apply to determine their own pay and conditions for teachers. However, as education action zones have not existed since 2005, the most appropriate action is to repeal section 128 of that Act entirely.

Although the legislation to create new education action zones remains in place, the effect of the clause is negligible given that no education action zones currently exist. If any new ones were subsequently created, as a result of this clause they would no longer be able to opt out of the statutory pay and conditions framework, which is entirely consistent with the Government’s new approach to teachers’ pay.

[Neil O'Brien]

Sir Christopher, you are a superb Chairman. You are also a very kind and thoughtful one for those of us who are not quick enough on the draw.

I will not make detailed comments here. We are abolishing something that was set up in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and it struck me that there are related ideas that the Minister might want to pick up rather than abolish.

As well as the education action zones that we are discussing here, the Blair Government had another go at that same idea in the 2002 Act and enabled huge amounts of school freedom in particular areas to bring about improvement. Although lots of work was done on that legislation and it was passed through the House, and lots of work was done to implement it, there was a change of Secretary of State and, strangely, the powers, although they are on the statute book, were never commenced.

We, as the Opposition, do not have the power to commence them, but I would recommend to the Minister that she does. I think there is a great opportunity here to get some innovation into the system. New clause 67, when we come to it, may look familiar to Ministers and to DFE lawyers, because I am afraid we have stolen it—it is a straightforward rip-off of 2002 Blair era reforms.

Even though in this clause abolishes a bit of Blair-era reform, we encourage Ministers to get back on the reforming horse and to return to that spirit. We hope when we come to that new clause that Ministers will spot what we are trying to do.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I note the spoiler for amendments to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Co-operation between schools and local authorities

Question proposed, That clause 47 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Clause 47 creates a new co-operation duty for schools and local authorities. It aims to strengthen how schools and local authorities work together on school admissions and place planning.

Collaboration and co-operation on these issues is vital to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable, can receive a school education. The clause places a duty on mainstream state schools and local authorities to co-operate with each other regarding their respective school admissions functions. It also places a duty on mainstream, special and alternative provision state schools to co-operate with local authorities regarding their place-planning functions.

For the admissions and place-planning system to function effectively, co-operation between schools and local authorities is essential. For example, local authorities need to regularly engage with local schools to produce and deliver proposals for ensuring that there are sufficient school places.

That process normally works well and we know that the vast majority of schools and local authorities already work together effectively to ensure that there is sufficient supply of school places and that local admission systems are working to support parent choice and allowing children to achieve and thrive. However, until now there has been no general duty on schools and local authorities to co-operate on these important issues.

In some instances, that has led to some schools and local authorities acting unilaterally or unhelpfully in regard to admissions or local place planning, without recognising the impact of their decisions on local communities. These new duties will send a strong message to schools and local authorities about the importance of co-operation on school admissions and place planning. As a result, we expect that schools and local authorities will seek to act more collaboratively on these issues, for example, sharing information in a timely manner and ensuring that they are working together in the best interests of the local community.

The absence of specific duties on co-operation also means that there are limited options available for the Secretary of State to intervene where a school or local authority is refusing to co-operate on these issues. Formalising a need to co-operate as a statutory duty will provide a mechanism to address such a situation. Where a school or local authority is failing or refusing to co-operate, the Secretary of State will be able to use her existing and planned enforcement powers to intervene, for example by considering directing the party at fault to take specific steps to comply with their co-operation duty.

[Neil O'Brien]

I will be quite brief. Clauses 47 to 50 are all of a piece, though it is the last of them, clause 50, that we have the greatest concerns about. In the interest of time, I will reserve my comments on the other clauses until later.

On clause 47, I just want to note my concerns that a rather vaguely defined duty to co-operate should not be abused by local authorities, and that a school’s failure to co-operate to the satisfaction of the local authority should not be used as a trigger for some of the rather alarming powers in clause 40. I just mark my concerns on this one, particularly about the vagueness of the duty to co-operate. I will return to more specific concerns on later clauses.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

Power to direct admission: extension to Academies

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 48, page 108, line 24, at end insert—

“(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance on the decision-making process that must be followed when directions are given under section 96 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.

(4) Guidance issued under subsection (3) must include details of—

(a) how actual or potential conflicts of interest arising from the role of local authorities in directing admissions to schools they maintain and those they do not are to be identified and managed; and

(b) how the best interests of children and young people are to be prioritised in all decision-making.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clause stand part.

Clause 49 stand part.

New clause 45—Power to direct admission not to have regard to maintained or academy status—

“In section 96 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (direction to admit child to specified school), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) A direction under this section may not take into account whether a school is a maintained school or an academy.’”

[Neil O’Brien]

We heard some concern about clauses 48 and 49 in our evidence sessions. One of the issues is the potential conflict of interest between the local authority being both the regulator of the local system and, at the same time, a provider of some of the schools but not others. Sir Dan Moynihan said,

“there is potentially a conflict of interest if local authorities are opening their own schools and there are very hard-to-place kids. There is a conflict of interest in where they are allocating those children, so there needs to be a clear right of appeal in order to ensure that that conflict can be exposed if necessary…Some of the schools we have taken on have failed because they have admitted large numbers of hard-to-place children…I think there are schools that get into difficulty and fail because there is perceived local hierarchy of schools, and those are the schools that get those children. That is why there needs to be a clear right of appeal to prevent that from happening.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 73, Q158.]

Luke Sparkes from Dixons also made roughly the same point.

Amendment 90 would require the Secretary of State to set out statutory guidance on

“how actual or potential conflicts of interest arising from the role of local authorities in directing admissions to schools they maintain and those they do not are to be identified and managed; and… how the best interests of children and young people are to be prioritised in all decision-making.”

New clause 45 would write into the legislation:

“A direction under this section may not take into account whether a school is a maintained school or an academy.”

Neither measure would fundamentally change the clause, but they require a solution to address that potential conflict of interest and ensure that things are fair, and are seen to be fair.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I rise to speak to amendment 90 and clauses 48 and 49. The clauses aim to strengthen local authorities’ existing powers to direct a school to admit a child and provide a more robust safety net for vulnerable children by ensuring that school places can be secured for them more quickly and efficiently when the usual admissions processes fall short.

Amendment 90 seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance as to how local authorities may exercise their direction powers impartially and in the best interests of children and young people. I note the concerns of the hon. Members that this new power may give rise to conflicts of interests in local authorities’ dealings with the schools that they maintain and those that they do not. I also agree that it is important that local authorities exercise their direction powers appropriately and in the best interests of children and young people.

I reassure hon. Members that legislation, as well as the school admissions code, already sets out mandatory requirements as to how local authorities may exercise their direction powers. They are intended for use only as a last resort and may only be used where admissions cannot be secured through the usual processes. To ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of a child, section 96 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 already requires local authorities to ensure that they choose a school that is within a reasonable distance of a child’s home and provides education suitable to their age, ability, aptitude and any specific educational needs that the child may have.

Furthermore, in considering which school to place the child, there are several other factors that local authorities are already required to take into consideration. For example, local authorities are unable to direct a school from which the child has been permanently excluded, or if it would mean that the school would have to take measures to avoid breaking the rules on infant class sizes. Furthermore, they are unable to direct a school’s sixth form if the child does not meet the relevant entry requirements.

In relation to a looked-after child, local authorities cannot direct a school where the child has been permanently excluded from that school previously or where the schools adjudicator deems the admission of the child would result in serious prejudice following an appeal by the school against the direction.

Furthermore, section 97 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 sets out further processes that a local authority must adhere to when considering exercising its direction powers. These include various requirements on consultation, including requiring the local authority to consult with the governing body of the school, the parent of the child and the child themselves, if they are over compulsory school age, before seeking to direct a school. Governing bodies are also provided the opportunity to appeal against any decision by the local authority to direct a child into their school.

Clause 48 enables the same requirements to apply equally in relation to a decision to direct an academy, including making it clear that academy trusts will have the right to appeal to the schools adjudicator against a local authority’s decision to direct their school. Those requirements will all be reflected in the school admissions code, which we intend to amend following Royal Assent. We also intend to work closely with the sector on any further changes that may be needed to fully implement the new powers.

Any change in the code will require a full public consultation and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny before coming into effect, so I hope that the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich are reassured that we will take action to ensure that the statutory school admissions code will be amended accordingly and continue to set out clear guidance on how local authorities may exercise their direction powers following Royal Assent. We therefore do not consider the amendment necessary and kindly ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw it.

I turn to clauses 48 and 49. Local authorities have statutory duties to ensure that children in their area have access to a suitable education, but the levers are currently not available to them to achieve that, as they are not always effective. That can result in too many children, many of whom are vulnerable, being left without a school place for too long. Every day lost in a child’s education is one that they cannot get back. Powers of direction are intended to be used only as a last resort in those rare circumstances in which families are unable to secure a place through the usual admissions processes.

The purpose of clauses 48 and 49 is to create a more robust safety net for vulnerable children by giving local authorities the levers they need to secure school places for children more quickly and efficiently when the usual admissions processes fall short, ensuring that no child falls through the cracks. Clause 48 extends the current powers of local authorities to direct a maintained school to admit a child and to enable them to direct academies in the same way.

Although most children will secure a place through the usual admissions processes, vulnerable and hard-to-place children can sometimes struggle to do so. In circumstances in which those children have been refused entry to or have been permanently excluded from every suitable school within a reasonable distance, the local authority has the power to direct a maintained school for which they are not the admission authority to admit that child.

However, where a local authority wishes to place a child in an academy, it currently must request that the Secretary of State uses her direction powers under the academy’s funding agreement to compel the school to admit the child. That additional step can create further delay in getting a child into school. Enabling local authorities to direct academies themselves without needing to go through the process of requesting the Secretary of State to invoke her direction powers will ensure that school places for unplaced and vulnerable children can be secured quickly and efficiently. It does not make sense for local authorities to continue to need to ask the Secretary of State to make such direction for an academy.

Clause 49 further streamlines local authorities’ admission direction processes and makes them more transparent by enabling local authorities to direct a school where the fair access protocol fails to secure a school place for a child. The fair access protocol is a local mechanism for securing school places for children struggling to secure one through the usual admissions processes. The school admissions code requires all local authorities to have a fair access protocol in place that has been agreed with local schools and specifies the categories of children, including vulnerable and hard-to-place children, who are eligible to be considered for a school place under the fair access protocol.

Clause 49 will also enable future iterations of the admissions code to specify circumstances in which local authorities are able to direct the admission of a child where the fair access protocol has been exhausted and fails to secure a place for them. It will also allow the admissions code to set out a more streamlined directions process for children who have come out of care, so as to provide these often still vulnerable children greater parity with children currently in care. As mentioned, we intend to work closely with the sector in implementing the changes to the admissions code, which will include a full public consultation and require parliamentary approval.

I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that clauses 48 and 49 will provide a more robust safety net for vulnerable children by ensuring that places can be secured for them more quickly and efficiently when the usual admissions processes fall short, minimising time out of school and reducing the likelihood of children falling between the cracks. As I have mentioned, to ensure the powers are used appropriately, clause 48 will provide academies that disagree with a decision to direct admission with a formal route of appeal to the schools adjudicator, giving academies the same route of redress as is currently available only to maintained schools. That safeguard will ensure that local authorities use their powers appropriately and place children in suitable schools where they can thrive. I commend clauses 48 and 49 to the Committee.

New clause 45, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, aims to ensure that where a local authority is considering directing a school to admit a child, it does not take account of whether the school is a maintained school or an academy. The hon. Members appear to be concerned that a new power for local authorities to direct academy schools may give rise to potential conflicts of interest.

As I have mentioned, the power is intended for use only as a last resort, and may be used only where admissions cannot be secured through the usual processes. Under public law principles, local authorities are already prevented from taking irrelevant matters into consideration when taking decisions, and in most circumstances, whether a school is an academy is not likely to be a relevant factor in determining whether to direct a school to admit a child. Furthermore, as I set out earlier, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the school admissions code already set out several requirements as to how local authorities may exercise their direction powers. Those include relevant factors that they must take into consideration when deciding to direct a school, as well as the processes they must follow when making a direction.

Local authorities can already request that the Secretary of State direct a pupil into an academy on their behalf, and we know from experience that local authorities use this route only where they consider that it is in the best interests of the pupil, and after careful thought and consideration about the impact on the school. However, the new right for an academy trust to appeal to the independent schools adjudicator where they disagree with a direction for them to admit a child will provide independent oversight of local authorities’ decisions to direct.

I hope that the hon. Members will be reassured that appropriate checks and balances will be in place to mitigate any risk of the misuse of the power by local authorities, and kindly ask that the amendment be withdrawn.

--- Later in debate ---

In fact, she would like the Bill to go further and say that local authorities should set all admissions policies.

[Neil O’Brien]

I think Sam Freedman is a fella rather than a lady. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50

Functions of adjudicator in relation to admission numbers

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 50, page 110, line 4, at end insert—

“(4A) Where making a decision the adjudicator must take into account—

(a) the performance of the school; and

(b) whether the school is oversubscribed.”

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 83, in clause 50, page 110, leave out lines 8 to 13.

Clause stand part.

New clause 46—High performing schools to be allowed to expand PAN—

“In section 88D of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (determination of admission numbers), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Where a school—

(a) being a primary school, has over 60% of its pupils meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths combined in the Key Stage 2 national curriculum assessments,

(b) being a secondary school, is performing above +0.5 on Progress 8,

wishes to increase its published admissions number, the admission authority must reflect that wish in its determination.’”

New Clause 47—Limits on objections to changes to PAN—

“In section 88H of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (reference of objections to adjudicator), after subsection (2) insert—

‘(2A) No objection may be referred to the adjudicator which—

(a) objects to an increase in a school’s published admissions number; or

(b) objects to a school’s published admissions number remaining at the same level.’”

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Clause 50 is one of the elements of the Bill that we are most concerned about. The Government’s impact assessment says:

“Demographic changes mean there is an increase in the number of surplus places in primary schools...We want the local authority to have more influence over the PANs for schools in their area”.

For the benefit of people following the sitting, PAN is the published admission number—the number of pupils a school takes on each year.

The impact assessment continues:

“This would include scenarios where...a school’s PAN is set at a level which creates viability issues for another local school”.

In my mind, that line creates many questions. In a city like London, there are roughly 2,700 or 2,800 state schools, and cross-authority moves are very common. If I have an excellent and oversubscribed school, and someone else’s requires improvement and is struggling to attract pupils, how on earth are they to know that it is my school that is creating viability issues for their school, rather than one of the other hundreds of schools nearby? Indeed, how are we to know that the viability issues are not entirely to do with the struggling school, and how is the schools adjudicator to make such decisions? In reverse, how are the pupils from a thriving school to be shared out fairly if there are multiple struggling schools in the area? As soon as we start to think about it, these are massive questions.

The impact assessment makes it clear that this measure is a huge departure from the path we have been on since the reforms of the late 1980s, which gave good schools the ability to expand without the local authority blocking them. The impact assessment says:

“The Adjudicator will also have the ability to set the PAN for the subsequent year”

and

“some schools may find that their PAN is not set for them as they would wish. They may feel that they are able to take more pupils and thus receive greater funding. It could also limit the ability of popular schools to grow.”

Those are the Government’s words, not mine. They continue:

“If a school is required to lower their PAN, some pupils who would have otherwise been admitted will be unable to attend the school. This will negatively impact on parental preference, especially if the school was the parent’s first choice.”

The Confederation of School Trusts has pointed out that the impact assessment does not account for the potential risks of reducing PANs for popular and successful schools. Our amendments address exactly that point. Once again, rather than the normal split between the regulator and the provider, the local authorities will be both. Politicians in some local authorities—this is not a secret—have never much liked the academy programme or school freedom. It would be very tempting for them to try to push down numbers in academies, particularly to protect the schools that they run even if they are not the best ones or the ones that parents want. For all those reasons, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the former Labour leader, was positive about the clause on Second Reading. However, for the reasons that he is positive about it I am rather nervous about it.

Amendment 84 would write into the Bill:

“Where making a decision the adjudicator must take into account—

(a) the performance of the school; and

(b) whether the school is oversubscribed.”

It would make it clear that we need to deal with the issues now, at this point of democratic decision and transparency, and write those principles into law rather than leave it to Ministers and regulations, meaning that the handling of highly significant issues could easily later shift, with little scrutiny, under a different Secretary of State.

New clause 47 would stop objections to stable or growing PANs, and new clause 46 would at least exempt high performing schools and allow them to still expand. A striking thing about the clause is that it is not just allowing appeals against schools expanding for the first time—a massive move away from the principles of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998—but even allowing appeals against schools just staying the same and carrying on doing what they are doing. That can now be challenged, and the only reason to do that is to share out the pupils in order to help other schools be more viable.

Will the powers be used? Yes, absolutely they will, because the context, of course, is the forecast decline in pupil numbers. Indeed, the impact assessment gives that as one of the rationales in London and other urban areas. The declines are forecast to be quite steep. Often local forecasts turn out to be wrong, but in some London boroughs the forecast is for more than one in 10 or even one in eight pupils to disappear over the next four years. In that context, the temptation to prop up some schools by pressing for reductions in others will be very strong, particularly for local authorities that do not like school choice much, but even in others, too.

At present there is nothing in the Bill to reassure us or school leaders that this will be done fairly between local authority and non-local authority schools, or fairly reflecting how well schools are performing or fairly reflecting how popular they are. There is nothing but the suggestion of future guidance, which the House will not be able to amend and which can shift with the views of whoever is Secretary of State at the time. There is some deep history here. It was Mrs Thatcher who announced the reforms that the Government are starting to undo today. It was initially called the local management of schools. When Mrs Thatcher announced it, she said,

“We will allow popular schools to take in as many children as space will permit. And this will stop local authorities from putting artificially low limits on entry to good schools. And second, we will give parents and governors the right to take their children’s school out of the hands of the local authority and into the hands of their own governing body. This will create a new kind of school funded by the State, alongside the present State schools and the independent private schools. They will bring a better education to many children because the school will be in the hands of those who care most for it and for its future.”

Did those reforms work? Well, the former Education Minister, Lord Adonis, who wrote about the creation of the school freedom, concluded:

“Local Management of Schools was an unalloyed and almost immediate success…school budgets under LMS were based largely on pupil numbers, so parental choice came to matter as never before.”

Several times during our debates I have heard Labour Members say that they believe in “standards, not structures”. We heard it in the last sitting and I have heard it from Ministers. But let me quote from another great socialist thinker, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who says in his memoirs,

“We had come to power in 1997 saying it was ‘standards not structures’ that mattered. We said this in respect of education, but it applied equally to health and other public services. Unfortunately, as I began to realise, when experience shaped our thinking, it was bunkum as a piece of policy. The whole point is that structures beget standards. How a service is configured affects outcomes.”

This clause strikes at one of the most foundational school reforms of the last 40 years. It strikes at school choice by making the size of schools not a matter for parents in choosing and voting with their feet, but instead for local councillors and the schools adjudicator. You strike at parental choice and you strike at one of the most powerful engines for school improvement.

Although I understand what Ministers are trying to do, this is currently being done in the Bill without any of the basic safeguards we would expect on how they will make those decisions. I understand what Ministers are trying to do, but I think this is one of the worst clauses in the Bill, and I really hope that Ministers will rethink it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Clause 50 covers the ability of the schools adjudicator to set the published admissions number of a school where the adjudicator has upheld an objection to it. This provides an important backstop to ensure that all children are able to access a place at a school where they can achieve and thrive.

Amendments 84 and 83 relate to the matters the adjudicator must take into account when deciding on a school’s published admissions number and the means by which those requirements are placed upon her. I will discuss each of these matters in turn, but there are clearly important connections between the two.

Amendment 84 would requires the adjudicator to take into account the school’s performance and whether it is oversubscribed when deciding on what the school’s published admissions number should be following an upheld objection. School performance and parental demand are clearly important factors that adjudicators should consider when determining objections to published admission numbers. Indeed, previous adjudicator determinations on schools reducing published admission numbers show that the adjudicator regularly takes these matters into consideration where they are relevant to a case.

However, specifying that the adjudicator must only take account of these factors and no other factors could hinder effective decision making and damage the interests of schools and communities. Although the expansion of good schools is to be celebrated, we know that in some areas schools are unilaterally increasing their admission numbers beyond what is needed, damaging the quality of education that children receive at nearby schools by making it harder for school leaders to plan the best education for their children.

Therefore, it is right that the adjudicator’s decisions about the level at which to set the admission number following an upheld objection should also consider the wider impact on the community. For example, this could include potential impacts on parental choice if the quality of education that children receive at other schools nearby is affected.

Furthermore, there are other factors that it may be important for the adjudicator to consider or that provide necessary safeguards for the school that is the subject of the objection, such as statutory financial or capacity requirements. For example, primary schools are required to comply with the statutory infant class-size limit and we would want the adjudicator to ensure that any published admission number they set enables the school to comply with this important duty.

[Neil O'Brien]

The Minister talks about schools expanding “beyond what is needed”. How will she determine whether a school’s expansion is “beyond what is needed”? Is it the presence of any “surplus” school places in that local authority area?

[Catherine McKinnell]

As I have set out, these are matters for the school adjudicator to determine on when objections have been raised with them. Schools adjudicators are independent, which is an important factor in this process. They have significant experience of considering objection cases and they are ideally placed to take objective, transparent and impartial decisions.

[Neil O'Brien]

It was the Minister herself who said “we know” that some schools had expanded “beyond what was needed”’; she did not say that an admissions adjudicator had determined that. In response to my challenge, she referred to the admissions adjudicator, but it was she herself who said “we know” that some schools had expanded beyond the point that was “needed”. How does she know that? On what basis does she say that?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Obviously, the purpose of the clause is to ensure that those decisions are made independently by the schools adjudicator. I think the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that he is objecting to an independent adjudication on these matters, which is entirely the purpose of this legislative provision.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, that is not what I said. I was responding to the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston.

These measures are being introduced to support local authorities with effective place planning. In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about how we know that this challenge needs action, a 2022 report commissioned by the Department for Education under the previous Government reported that

“unilateral decisions about PANs and admissions…was identified by 89% of LAs”

as a barrier to fulfilling their responsibilities for mainstream school place planning. Some 13% of local authorities reported that

“this occurred regularly, 41% occasionally, and 34% rarely”.

Local authorities were more likely to report that this barrier was more common when working with academies. Those are the findings of the Department’s own report, which was commissioned under the last Government.

To be clear, the measure is not about removing any and all surplus places from the school system, including where it is useful, for example, in ensuring parental choice and flexibility in the system to accommodate future demand for school places. This is about ensuring that the places on offer in an area adequately reflect the needs of that local community. Where there is large surplus capacity, that can have a detrimental impact on good schools. It could result in significant upheaval for children and damage local parental choice. This is about supporting local authorities to ensure that they have the right amount of school places in their local area. There is already a statutory obligation on that. This measure will support local authorities to achieve that.

[Neil O'Brien]

The Minister is talking about within local communities and within local authorities and so on. I raised the issue of how this is supposed to work in London. The Government talked about using this power where

“a school’s PAN is set at a level which creates viability issues for another local school”.

Local is not defined. How is the schools adjudicator to work out whether it is one school that is creating

“viability issues for another local school”

in a setting like London, where there are many schools nearby, or whether some of the viability issues are to do with the school’s own performance, perhaps, because it is not a very good school? How on earth is one to identify fairly in a city like this, with vast flows between boroughs, where the problem is coming from for a “failing” school?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I recognise the challenge of falling rolls in some London boroughs, which the hon. Member rightly identifies. It just goes to make the case even more strongly: partners have to work collaboratively to ensure that we manage demographic changes properly and that children are at the heart of all decisions.

The measures in the Bill will give local authorities more levers to help manage surplus capacity. For example, the Bill will ensure that if the schools adjudicator upholds an objection that the published admission number of a school is too high to support the community need, the adjudicator will then be able to set the published admission number for the school. Schools and local authorities will be under new duties to co-operate on school admissions and place planning as part of measures to the Bill already debated and passed.

[Neil O'Brien]

What share of “surplus places” is too high in the eyes of the Minister? Will she set out in guidance what “too high” looks like? What is her view on too high—is it 1%, 2% or 3% surplus places?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The guidance will set out how local authorities will determine their published admission number. It will also support local authorities with effective place planning, which will be set out in the admissions code. The new delegated powers will set out to adjudicators what they should consider when setting published admission numbers within that context.

I can reassure the hon. Member that adjudicators are experienced at considering these types of issues as part of their existing role. They already do this. They consider both objections to published admission number reductions and requests by maintained schools to vary their published admission number downwards in light of major changes in circumstances. They have an in-depth knowledge of admissions law and play an integral role in ensuring that school admissions are fair and lawful. Many have wide experience of the education system at a very senior level. The hon. Member should not be so concerned that these matters cannot be adjudicated, which seems to be what he is suggesting.

[Neil O'Brien]

I am not suggesting that they cannot be adjudicated. I am pointing out to the Minister that for them to be adjudicated in a completely new way will mean something very different will happen to our education system. At the moment, the adjudicator can be brought in if a school dramatically wants to cut its numbers. That is fair enough. We need to make sure that all pupils have a place to go to school. But this is something completely new. There is an objection not just to expanding, which is an attack on the principle of school choice, but to schools wanting to keep their published admission number the same.

This is a completely revolutionary change. The adjudicator is not dealing with these kinds of things at the moment for academies, so it is a huge change and a move away from the principles that have allowed good schools to expand and the voices of those who say, “There are too many surplus places; you can go to a worse school and not to your first-choice school” to be squashed by the process of school choice and competition.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman has made his concerns known. I do not think he is making any new assertions. It might be helpful if I continue setting out why we do not accept the proposed amendments.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Local authorities make decisions about place planning within their local area. There will be a duty on all schools within a local area to co-operate with the local authority on place planning and admissions. The clause and the Bill extend to academies the ability to object to the school adjudicator, which gives them the ability to present their case where there is a challenge. Clause 50, which I will come to shortly, includes a delegated power that enables the Government to make regulations that set out factors that the adjudicator must consider when setting the published admission number of the school after it has upheld an objection.

[Neil O’Brien]

To be clear, is it the case that under the clause the schools adjudicator will have the power to set the published admission number to zero—in other words, to close a school?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Where the adjudicator upholds an objection to the published admission number, I cannot foresee a circumstance where that might be the case—

[Neil O’Brien]

I can see that very easily.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes powerful and important points relating to the challenges she has experienced in her local area. That is why the changes are necessary to ensure we have a fair system.

The usual approach from Opposition Members is to act as though this is a new thing that has just been invented. This is not a new role for adjudicators. They already consider these issues, not just in proposals to reduce admission numbers—

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Can I finish making one point? Adjudicators do that when schools seek to vary their admission arrangements once they have been determined. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the theoretical prospect—

[Neil O’Brien]

It is not theoretical.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is a hypothetical prospect of a published admission number being set at zero. That will be dealt with as part of regulations and we will set out more detail in those, but we will address that.

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I can get back to the actual substantive response to the amendment, or we can carry on with this debate in the meantime.

[Neil O’Brien]

This is a substantive point. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; we are doing the proper business of a Committee here. Let us be clear: the whole point of the clause is to address situations, such as those in London, where a local authority has one in eight of its primary school pupils disappearing within four years, and schools closures will be a part of that. The Minister said that this is not new, but it absolutely is. At the moment, a primary school cannot have its PAN challenged by the local authority if it just wants to keep it the same. In the future, under this clause, the local authority can say, “We want to close this school. We are going to challenge your decision to keep your PAN the same. We think you should shut.” Under this clause, the schools adjudicator will have the power to set its PAN to zero.

[Amanda Martin]

Will the hon. Member take an intervention?

[The Chair]

Order. You cannot intervene on an intervention.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister says that the Secretary of State can shut schools in other ways. The schools authority, under this law, will have the power to set a PAN to zero. I did not hear the Minister say that, according to guidance, that should not happen. Will she say that now?

[Catherine McKinnell]

To deal with the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, he is wrong that this is a new power.

[Neil O’Brien]

Of course it is a new power.

[Catherine McKinnell]

If the hon. Gentleman will let me a finish a sentence, he will see. The hon. Gentleman is repeatedly putting words in my mouth by taking snippets of sentences without listening to them entirely. He is concerned that this is intended to address simply matters that might affect London.

[Neil O’Brien]

No!

[Catherine McKinnell]

That is what the hon. Gentleman just said, did he not?

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Of course it is not. This is stupid. It affects the entire country.

[Catherine McKinnell]

That is the point I am making. These challenges affect local authorities right up and down the country. The research the previous Government undertook into this matter demonstrated that local authorities, which have a statutory obligation to provide suitable school places for all the children in their local area, face widespread challenges in meeting that obligation because of the challenges in the current system, which the clauses seek to address. Yes, this is a new statutory duty, which is why we are legislating, but it is not a new role for adjudicators. That is the point that I have made a number of times. I am not saying this is not a change, as we are legislating to change things, but it is not a new role for adjudicators. They are well experienced in managing many of these considerations.

The fundamental point is that school closures need to be managed very carefully through significant change or prescribed alteration processes.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 3WC.] (Correction) As I am sure the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston is aware, academies are maintained through contractual arrangements. The parties to the funding agreements are the Secretary of State and the relevant academy trust, and there are no third-party rights given to a local authority under that funding agreement. Any decision relating to the termination of a funding agreement sits with the Secretary of State.

The purpose of the Bill is to put a new requirement on schools, academy trusts and local authorities to co-operate on place planning and admission matters. We expect them to work together to manage the supply of school places and, where necessary, that may include making plans to close a maintained school or academy, if that is the right decision for a particular area.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I cannot envisage a scenario where an adjudicator would adjudicate on the opening of a new school. If it adjudicates on the published admission numbers of existing schools, I cannot foresee a scenario where there would be an appeal to the adjudicator for a school that does not exist.

[Neil O’Brien]

If I can put it in my words, there is nothing in the Bill to stop the local authority applying to the adjudicator to stop the first year PAN of a new school. If I say, “I want to open my new school and the PAN is going to be X,” the local authority could say, “No, I think it should be half of X.” There is nothing to stop that, even in the first year. It could even be that the local authority says, “No, the first year number should be zero.” There is nothing in the Bill to stop that happening, so, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire says, it does apply to new schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I apologise, but I still do not see the relevance to how an adjudicator could open a new school. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman after I have considered the issue further.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will have to take away that question, and I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with a response. Obviously, the adjudicator currently has a role in certain cases—for example, where a local authority is involved in the foundation of a school. I will look at the specific example that he raises, and I am happy to write to him with a response.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her offer to write on this point. To avoid disturbing her flow any further, can I ask her to explain something? If a school is not happy with the decision of the adjudicator on its PAN, what will the appeal process look like for that school?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Adjudicators’ decisions are legally binding and publicly available. Ultimately, adjudicators are appointed by the Secretary of State, who is accountable for those decisions. That responds to the question from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire about democratic accountability.

I presume that the outcome in the case that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raises would be a legal challenge to the decision. Obviously, he and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire are testing the possible outcomes of this measure to the very limit, which comes across as rather extreme in most cases. The purpose of the clause is to simplify, clarify and make more transparent the levers that local authorities will have to set planning numbers in their area, ideally to reduce the number of challenges and issues that arise.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate that the hon. Lady refers to a real potential scenario, although I would certainly put it in the hypothetical category at this stage. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator can only take a decision in relation to a PAN where there has been an objection. That is the point I was making. It cannot decide whether to open a school; it can take a decision only where an objection is made specifically to the adjudicator on the basis of the published admission number.

Subject to the passing of this Bill, new school proposals put forward by the local authority outside the invitation process—I do not believe we have got to those clauses yet; we are coming to a whole additional debate on that—will be decided by the schools adjudicator, to avoid any conflict of interest and to ensure that any objections to the proposals are considered fairly. Obviously, it will have the legal framework within which to operate in order to make those decisions. That is an established part of the current system.

For other possible scenarios, we will provide guidance on the factors that we expect decision makers to take into account in the variety of decisions that may be required. That will be based on the existing guidance for opening new schools and will include the vision for the school, whether it is deliverable and affordable, the quality of the education, the curriculum and the staffing plans. Those are all the factors taken into account when determining the opening of a new school.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 4WC.] (Correction)

However, I appreciate the challenge on published admission numbers, in particular, being a factor to be taken into consideration. As I said, I will confirm in more detail how that might work in practice, but the fundamental point is that it will be set out in guidance. If there is a challenge to a decision by an adjudicator, that will be by way of judicial review.

Moving on, new clause 46, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, seeks to ensure that where high-performing schools, as defined in his new clause, wish to increase their published admission number, their admission authority must reflect that in the determined admission arrangements. I can reassure him that, as I have said already, this Government support good schools expanding where that is right for the local community. We understand the importance of admission authorities being able to set their own admission arrangements, including their published admission number.

Admission authorities will consider a variety of factors in arriving at the most appropriate number for their schools and must consult where they want to make changes, taking the feedback into account before they make their final decision. Where, for example, a multi-academy trust or local authority is setting the PAN for an individual school for which it is the admission authority, it is right that it takes into account the views of that school, but that can be done by informal engagement or by a formal consultation process if necessary.

The school admissions code requires governing bodies to be consulted on changes to a school’s admission arrangements where they are not the admission authority. However, that does not mean that those views should override any relevant factors, such as budgeting or staffing, that a trust, governing body or local authority, as the school’s admission authority, may need to take into consideration as part of its final decision.

If the school feels that it has not been heard and the admission authority has reduced the published admission number where the school feels it should be able to offer more places, it would be open to the school itself, like any other body or person, to object to the adjudicator for an independent resolution. We expect most issues to be resolved locally, through engagement and collaboration, and, given the existing, effective routes for schools to influence the published admission number set for them by the local authority, we do not think the new clause is necessary. For the reasons I have outlined, I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press it.

Finally, I turn to new clause 47, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, which would prevent objections from being made against an admission authority where it proposes to increase its PAN or keep it the same as the previous year. Through clause 50 we want to ensure that the number of places on offer in an area adequately reflects the needs of the local community. As the hon. Member is aware, at present, any body or person can object to the adjudicator about a school’s determined admission arrangements, including the school’s PAN. However, current regulations have the same effect as his new clause of preventing objections where a PAN is increased or retained at the same level as the previous year. We intend to amend those regulations to allow the local authority to object to the adjudicator where a PAN has been increased or has stayed the same as in the previous year. This is intended to facilitate the measures set out in clause 50 to provide a more effective route for local authorities to object to the independent adjudicator about a school’s PAN.

The current circumstances in which the system operates are complex. In some areas there is a surplus of places, whereas in others, some admissions authorities are not offering sufficient places to ensure that all children can access a local school That means that both PAN increases and decreases can impact on the local school system in different ways, and that even where a school’s PAN has not changed from previous years, changing demographics can mean that that number no longer meets the needs of the local area. However, local authorities often lack the levers to deliver on their duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places, or to manage the school estate effectively. So, if the PAN does not work in the interests of the local community, the local authority should be able to object to the adjudicator, regardless of whether the school intends to increase, decrease or keep the same PAN, and that will ensure fairness and the most appropriate decision on the allocation of places.

Our proposed changes reflect local authorities’ important role in ensuring that there are sufficient places, and that the number of places offered in an area meets the needs of the community. That is why we are proposing a limited change to the regulations to lift this restriction only for local authorities, not for all bodies or people. The route of objection will be a last resort for local authorities. We expect local authorities and schools to work together to set PANs that are appropriate, and we will update the school admissions code to support that.

As the House has previously confirmed in passing the relevant regulations, the flexibility of the current regulations has worked well, enabling the Government of the day to be responsive to changing circumstances in the interests of parents and communities. New clause 47 would prevent the Government from exercising the flexibility provided for by the existing legislative framework, leaving local authorities with limited ability to act in the interests of the local community and seek an independent decision on the PAN of a school where they consider it does not meet the community’s needs. The changes that the Government propose to make to the regulations will of course be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.

In the light of those arguments, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clause 50 to the Committee.

[Neil O’Brien]

I pay tribute to the Minister for the reasonable way in which we have conducted this important debate. We have a huge disagreement with clause 50, which we think is a major mistake. We also have concerns about the process. We believe that it is better for this House to debate these big issues about what fairness is and looks like, and for that to be dealt with through the transparency of primary legislation, rather than its being left to the Secretary of State at any given moment to pass these things in regulations. I am therefore keen to press amendment 84 and new clause 46 to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 51, page 111, line 7, after “authorities” insert “, including academy trusts,”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 48, in clause 51, page 112, line 4, at end insert—

“(5) After section 7A (withdrawal of notices under section 7), insert—

“7B New schools to allocate no more than half of pupil places on basis of faith

A new school for which proposals are sought by a local authority under section 7 must, where the school is oversubscribed, provide that no more than half of all places are allocated on the basis of or with reference to—

(a) the pupil’s religious faith, or presumed religious faith;

(b) the religious faith, or presumed religious faith, of the pupil’s parents.””.

Clause stand part.

[Neil O'Brien]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will begin by asking a question up front, so that the Minister has time to confer with officials if she needs to in order to reply.

We learned during the debate on clause 50 that, as well as existing schools, local authorities will be able to go to the schools adjudicator regarding school openings. Will a local authority be able to object to the published admissions number of a school in another local authority, or is it limited to schools within its own area? Possible answers are: yes, they will be able to object about another authority; no, they will not be able to; or, the Government have not decided yet. As drafted, the Bill does not tell us what the Government’s intent is.

I will now speak to our amendment 85 and clause 51. Local authorities can already establish local authority schools if there is really no one who wants to start a new school, although, as the Government’s notes to the Bill rightly say, the current legal framework for opening new schools is tilted heavily towards all new schools—mainstream, special, and so on—being academies. As we have discussed, clause 44 repeals the requirement to turn failing local authority schools into academies; clause 51 is effectively the other half of that shift away from academisation. It ends the rule that new schools must be academies and allows local authorities to choose to set up new local authority-run schools instead. Both changes will reduce the flow of new schools into the best performing trusts. For that reason, we think it is a mistake.

Ministers keep saying that they want greater consistency —that seems to be one of the guiding principles of the Bill—but in the long term the combination of clause 51 and clause 44 will leave us with two types of school. That will sustain the confusion that we talked about in previous debates, where the local authority is simultaneously the regulator and a provider in the market it is regulating. The schools system is currently a halfway house: more than 80% of secondary schools are now academies, but less than half of primaries are, so just over half of all state schools are academies, and most academies are now in a trust.

I understand why Ministers have moved to find a legislative slot, and I know that anti-academies campaigners and people who do not like academies will welcome the clause. My question is where this is taking us in terms of a structure for the system as a whole. The Minister will say, “We want the flexibility to set up local authority schools,” but the combination of clauses 44 and 51 means that, in the long term, we will continue to have two types of school, rather than continue the organic move of recent years toward a system that is clearly based on academies and trusts, and trusts as the drivers of overall performance. That became apparent during the Government’s announcement the other day of their consultation on the new intervention regime. Ministers are now talking about RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—as one of the drivers of school improvement, leading to lots of questions about where the balance is between RISE and trusts, and what happens where the advice of a RISE team contradicts a trust’s views about what should be done in the case of a school with problems.

We have rehearsed a lot of these issues before, but I am keen to get an answer from the Minister about whether, in the case of new school openings in a different local authority, another local authority would be able to send the question of that school’s PAN to the schools adjudicator under clause 50. I am also keen to get the Minister’s sense of the finality of the system. Are Ministers happy for us to have just local authority schools and academies in the long term, and do not think that that is a problem they need to address? Do they not have a vision for the final situation, or do they have some other vision that the Minister wants to set out?

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome clause 51 and its counterpart, not least because we desperately need new special schools. The previous Government approved fewer than half of the 85 applications from councils to open SEND free schools in 2022. This is a real part of unblocking that, so we agree with the Government. We tabled amendment 48 because a potential loophole is created in the now well-established rules on faith-based selection. Those rules apply to academies and will continue to do so, but under clause 51 not all new schools will be academies. The amendment would bring all new schools into line with the current established principles of faith-based selection for academies. It is a very simple amendment. I think the error was made inadvertently during drafting, and hopefully the Government will support it.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston for tabling amendment 85. When a local authority thinks that a new school is needed in its area, it will be required to seek proposals for a new school from proposers other than local authorities. That includes academy trusts, as well as other bodies such as charitable foundations and faith bodies. Local authorities will be required to seek proposals for different types of school, including academy schools, foundation schools and voluntary schools.

I appreciate that the hon. Member may be looking for assurance that proposals for new academies will be sought and welcomed as part of the new invitation process. I can absolutely reassure him on that. We are simply ending the presumption that all new schools should be academies and allowing proposals for all types of school, so that the proposal that best meets the needs of children and families in an area is taken forward. All types of schools have an important role to play in driving the high standards that we want to see in every school, so that all children are supported to achieve and thrive.

I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for tabling amendment 48, which seeks to restrict the proportion of places that can be allocated on the basis of faith to a maximum of 50% for all new schools established following a local authority invitation to establish one. In practice, it would only make a difference to a new voluntary aided foundation and a voluntary controlled school with a faith designation.

I recognise that the hon. Member is seeking to ensure that new schools are inclusive and that all children have access to a good education. That is very much a mission that we share. The Government support the ability of schools designated with a religious character to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. This can support parents who wish to have their children educated in line with their religious beliefs. However, it is for a school’s admission authority to decide whether to adopt such arrangements.

The removal of the legal presumption that all new schools be academies is intended to ensure that local authorities have the flexibility to make the best decision to meet the needs of their communities. Decision makers will carefully consider proposals from all groups and commission the right new schools to meet need and to ensure that every child has the opportunity to achieve and thrive. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham will not press her amendment.

Clause 51 will end the legal presumption that new schools should be academies. It will require local authorities to invite proposals for academies and other types of school when they think that a new school should be established and will give them the option to put forward their own proposals. The changes will ensure that new schools are opened by the provider with the best offer for local children and families. They will better align local authorities’ responsibilities to secure sufficient school places with their ability to open new schools. We are committed to ensuring that new schools are opened in the right place at the right time, so that all children have access to a core offer of a high-quality education that breaks down the barriers to opportunity.

I turn to hon. Members’ specific questions. There was quite a wide-ranging debate on the amendments, which is typical of this very assiduous Committee. As I said on the faith schools cap provision, we want to allow proposals for different types of school that will promote a diverse school system that supports parental choice. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, we have a rich and diverse school system. Our priority is driving high and rising standards so that children can thrive in whatever type of school they are in. We will work in partnership with all types of school, including faith schools, as part of that mission.

Proposers, including faith groups, will be able to put forward a proposal in response to an invitation from the local authority and where the local authority thinks that a new school should be established in the area. As is already the case, faith groups can put forward proposals for a new voluntary or foundation school outside the invitation process, for example where they think that there is a need for particular places to replace an independent school or to replace one or more foundations or voluntary schools that have a religious character.

Although designated faith schools that are not subject to the 50% cap are not restricted in the number of places that they can offer with reference to faith when oversubscribed, it is for the admission authority to decide whether to adopt such arrangements. Indeed, there is real variation: some choose to prioritise only a certain proportion of their places with reference to faith in order to ensure that places are available for other children, regardless of faith, while many do not use faith-based oversubscription criteria at all. Regardless of the admissions policy set by the admission authority, faith schools remain subject to the same obligations as any other state-funded school to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs, and to teach a broad and balanced curriculum. That will apply to all schools as part of the changes introduced by this Bill.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 4WC.] (Correction)

Let me say in response to concerns about faith schools being less socioeconomically and ethnically diverse that, to be fair, it is not true of all faith schools. Catholic schools are among the most ethnically diverse types of school. Faith schools tend to have intakes that reflect wider intakes; they draw from a much larger catchment area, which can often create a more diverse intake. The Department does not collect data about the admission policies of schools with a religious character, and we do not have any data on the proportion of children admitted to a school on the basis of faith or how many are able to access a preferred place on the basis of their faith. That means that there is no data to support capping faith admissions on the ground that they are restricting children and parents from accessing the school of their choice.

On the role of the adjudicator, which I think the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asked about specifically, we will set out details in regulations, but it is our intention that local authorities will be able to object to the published admission numbers in another local authority.

I hope that I have responded to all the concerns that have been raised. I commend the clause to the Committee.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 48, in clause 51, page 112, line 4, at end insert—

“(5) After section 7A (withdrawal of notices under section 7), insert—

‘7B New schools to allocate no more than half of pupil places on basis of faith

A new school for which proposals are sought by a local authority under section 7 must, where the school is oversubscribed, provide that no more than half of all places are allocated on the basis of or with reference to—

(a) the pupil’s religious faith, or presumed religious faith;

(b) the religious faith, or presumed religious faith, of the pupil’s parents.’”—(Ian Sollom.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Clause 56 contains a provision for the Secretary of State to make changes consequential on the provisions of the Bill to other legislation, as well as to existing primary legislation. It has been drafted to allow the Secretary of State to make consequential changes to other Acts preceding this Bill or those that are passing before Parliament in this Session. It is always possible that necessary changes to legislation may be identified after a Bill’s passage. Given the breadth of legal areas that the Bill covers, it is prudent to provide a failsafe should anything have been missed. Without one, there is a risk to the coherence of the legislative landscape that the Bill creates. The clause sets out that regulations making changes to primary regulation are subject to the affirmative procedure, and that those making changes to other legislation are subject to the negative procedure.

Clause 57 contains a financial provision necessary to the provisions of the Bill that require expenditure. It sets out the expectation that Parliament will fund any expenditure and any future increase in it incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to this Bill.

Clause 58 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions in the Bill. It is a standard clause for all legislation. As the Committee is aware, Westminster does not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the relevant devolved Governments. However, there are no provisions of this Bill that engage that process.

Clause 59 sets out when the provisions in the Bill come into force. The general provisions on extent, commencement and the short title come into force on the day of Royal Assent. Subsection (2) sets out the provisions that will come into force two months after the Bill is passed. All the provisions will come into force on a day or days to be appointed by the Secretary of State through regulations. Those regulations may appoint different days for different purposes or different areas. The Secretary of State may also make regulations that provide for transitional or saving provision in connection with commencement.

Clause 60 provides that the short title of the Bill will be Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2025. For the reasons outlined, I commend the clauses to the Committee.

On new clause 10, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss removing the common law defence of reasonable punishment. Keeping children safe could not be more important to the Government. We are already taking swift action through these landmark reforms to children’s social care. It is the biggest overhaul in a generation. The Government are committed, through our plan for change, to ensuring that children growing up in our country get the best start in life through wider investment in family hubs and parenting support. This landmark Bill puts protecting children at its heart.

To be absolutely clear, the Government do not condone violence or the abuse of children, and there are laws in place to protect children against those things. Child protection agencies and the police treat allegations of abuse very seriously. They will investigate and take appropriate action, including prosecution, where there is sufficient evidence of an offence having been committed. Local authorities, police and healthcare professionals have a clear duty to act immediately to protect children if they are concerned that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.

This Bill will put children’s future at the centre of rebuilding public services, requiring higher standards for all children in need of help and protection. It is a key step towards delivering the Government’s opportunity mission to break the link between a young person’s background and future success.

We do not intend to legislate on the defence at this stage, but we will review the position when we have evidence from Wales of the impact since it was removed. Wales will publish its findings by the end of 2025 and we will look at them carefully. We recognise that parents have different views and approaches to disciplining their children. We need to consider their voices, and those of the child, trusted stakeholders and people who might be disproportionately affected by the removal of the defence, in making any decisions.

Let us also be clear: those children who have been abused or murdered by their parents would not have been covered by the defence of reasonable punishment. Crown Prosecution Service guidance is very clear about what is acceptable within the law to justify reasonable punishment.

The Bill introduces many measures to keep children safe—for example, requiring local authorities to have and maintain children not in school registers; improving information sharing between agencies; making sure that education and childcare settings are involved in local safeguarding partnerships; and making it a requirement for every local authority to have multi-agency child protection teams. Nationally, we are rolling out the vital multi-agency family health and child protection reforms through the Families First partnership programme from April 2025, and we are delivering parenting support through our family hubs programme in several local authorities.

The protection of children is critical. The Bill takes important steps to improve safeguarding. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for North Herefordshire not to press the new clause.

On amendment 11, I appreciate what the hon. Member has set out in relation to having a delayed implementation for the removal of the defence of reasonable punishment. As I mentioned in response to new clause 10, we do not intend to legislate at this stage, but we will wait for Wales to publish its impact report on removing the defence, which is due at the end of 2025. We will look at the evidence of the potential impact before making such a significant legislative change. When we review the position, we will ensure that due thought and consideration are given to ensuring that there is an appropriate implementation period. On that basis, I invite her not to press the amendment.

[Neil O’Brien]

I rise to speak only to clause 56, which is a big old Henry VIII power. I am sure that their lordships will want to explore it in detail. In the interests of time, I have not tabled an amendment to it at this stage and I will not go into lots of detail, but it is always important to note such things. It is no small thing to give the Government the power to amend primary legislation without coming back to the House. Of course, there are certain limits to what they could do by means of such measures, but it is a big deal.

I place it on the record that the Minister will be well aware of some of the concerns about the clause that are coming to us from civil society. I am sure that she will have seen the comments from Jen Persson, the director of Defend Digital Me, on the information powers in the Bill. When we make laws in this way, it relies on someone noticing and raising an objection to Parliament to get any kind of democratic debate, and we can only stop such things in hindsight.

As the Minister will know, Defend Digital Me has put forward 30 different areas and proposals that it has concerns about, particularly on the information side. On previous clauses, we debated the constant unique identifier and eventually using the NHS number for that, and other things that we have objected to, such as the requirement to give information about how much time a home-schooled child is spending with both parents.

I will not reconsider all the debates that we have already had, but all those important decisions will potentially be in the scope of this Henry VIII power. I am keen to move on to the new clauses, so I will not go any further now, but I am sure that the Government will receive lots of probing questions on this point as the Bill moves to the other place.

[Munira Wilson]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, adding the Liberal Democrats’ support for putting equal protection into law for children. I do not understand why we would have a different level of protection for adults versus children. They are the most vulnerable children in our society. The Children’s Commissioner and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have been very clear that children should be protected. This is not seeking to interfere with parents in terms of how they discipline their children; it is about protecting our most vulnerable. The Children’s Commissioner has strongly called for this, particularly in the wake of the tragic case of Sara Sharif.

I really hope, when the Minister says that the Government will actively look at this during this Parliament, that that is the case. I suspect that there are Members in all parts of the House—I note that the new clause has cross-party support—who will continue to press her on this matter, because it is a basic issue of children’s rights and equal protection in law.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will respond initially to the question raised by the hon. Member for—

[Neil O’Brien]

Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. “Harborough” is fine.

[Catherine McKinnell]

On clause 56, it is always possible that necessary changes to legislation might be identified through a Bill’s passage. As I said, it is therefore prudent to have a failsafe should anything have been missed. This power is limited and narrow: it can be used only to make amendments that are consequential on the Bill’s provisions, which will be voted on, and it is in line with usual practice.

Regulations made under the power that amend or repeal any provision in primary legislation will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have carefully considered the power, and we believe that it is entirely justified in this case. It is needed to ensure that we are able to deal with the legislative consequences that may flow naturally from the main provisions and ensure that other legislation continues to work properly following the passage of the Bill.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. Before we adjourned, I was about to turn to new clause 24. I appreciate the concern of hon. Members in this matter and their desire for academies to follow rules on granting a leave of absence. One of the many ways in which schools encourage regular attendance is by making clear to parents the circumstances under which leave of absence can and cannot be granted. All schools, however, including academies, are already required to have regard to statutory attendance guidance and are expected to follow the rules on granting a leave of absence.

Headteachers understand the responsibilities and know how important it is that children are in school. We have very little, if any, evidence of misuse of power in academies or big increases in the number of leaves of absence. All the indications are that academy heads follow the guidance and apply the exceptional circumstances test to relevant requests for leave, only granting them where it is met. We will continue to monitor this and support them to make school the best place to be for every child, but new clause 24 would not help us to do that. I invite the hon. Member to withdraw new clause 21.

[Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 25

Report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.

(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include the following information—

(a) how many private schools have closed as a result of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees;

(b) how many pupils have moved school because of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees;

(c) an analysis, considering paragraphs (a) and (b), of the impact of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees on maintained and academy schools, including on—

(i) the availability of school places nationally and in areas where private schools have closed;

(ii) the percentage of children which are placed at their first-choice school; and

(iii) the number of schools which have had to increase their Publish Admissions Number.”—(Neil O'Brien.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O'Brien]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Around my constituency, we have seen the closure of a couple of local independent schools, which have blamed the decision to introduce VAT. This will mean more people looking for places in local state schools that are already oversubscribed and, in turn, fewer people getting their first choice. New clause 25 is not about the principle of the tax, but about having a proper mechanism to monitor the impact on the state system, among other things.

An importance piece published in The Times over the weekend found, based on freedom of information requests, that at least 27 local authorities have no spare school places in certain year groups, which will make it difficult to find places for children forced to move schools. Those are exactly the kinds of issues that we need to monitor very carefully, which is why this new clause calls for a report on the impact of the policy.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 25, which seeks to monitor the impact of VAT on private school fees. There is, however, something missing in the new clause, which I have urged Ministers repeatedly to look at. I hope that even if they will not publicly talk about it, they are looking privately at the impact of this policy on the 100,000 children with special educational needs in private schools who do not have education, health and care plans, and may be displaced into the state sector. That will have an impact on the state sector and the demand for EHCPs, which is already in crisis. When Ministers respond, I hope they might address that point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I know the right hon. Member will have been listening very carefully to what I said, and I made it very clear that there is a census published each year, which sets out those figures. We will work very closely with local authorities to understand the impact that the policy has.

The hon. Member for Twickenham made a number of points on children with SEND. The vast majority of pupils who have special educational needs are educated in mainstream schools—whether they are state-maintained or private—where their needs are met. Where parents have chosen to send their child to a private school but their special educational needs could be met in the state sector—such as in England where children do not have an EHCP—VAT will apply to fees. The Government do not support the new clause for the reasons that I have outlined, and I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw it.

[Neil O'Brien]

I think it is clear from the Minister’s response that there are certain things we will not be able to find out in the absence of this new clause. We will not be able to see the numbers moving from the private sector to the state sector. In particular, as the hon. Member for Twickenham raised, we will not be able to see the critical flow of those with undiagnosed or unofficially recognised special needs, as they potentially move into the EHCP process and into state schools. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the impact of this policy over time, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30

Publication of details of preventative care and family support

(1) Every local authority, must within six months of the passing of this Act, publish details of all preventative care and family support available to people in their area.

(2) Information published under subsection (1) must be made available—

(a) on the authority’s website, and

(b) in all public libraries in the authority’s area.”—(Munira Wilson.)

This new clause would require all local authorities to publish information about preventative care and family support and to ensure it is freely available to people living in the area.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Munira Wilson]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

When I was on the Science and Technology Committee in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Even then the evidence was alarming; now it is absolutely terrifying. Children are now given smartphones at a very early age. A quarter of the UK’s three and four-year-olds own a smartphone, and by the end of primary school, four out of five kids have one. Over the past decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world. Over the exact same period, smartphones and social media became dominant in children’s lives. The growth in anxiety and mental health problems that we are seeing is focused almost entirely in young people, not older people.

There are many channels through which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. First, they displace time in the real world with friends. US data shows that prior to 2012, children spent more than two hours a day with friends. By 2019, that had halved. The proportion of kids feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world.

The invention of infinite-scroll social media has always reminded me of the famous social science experiment with the bottomless soup bowl. In this experiment, people were invited to eat from a soup bowl that was, unbeknownst to them, invisibly refilled from below. The constant refilling made people eat nearly twice as much as they would with a normal bowl—in some cases absurd amounts of soup.

This is not just about a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Kids are tired in school. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively, and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip-feed the user dopamine. The same problems are happening not just in the English-speaking world, but in the Nordic nations and all across western Europe. Alternative explanations do not fit the data.

Well-funded efforts by the tech industry to lobby, muddy the water, run interference and sow confusion are unconvincing. These problems are not just a coincidence. There is more and more evidence for a causal link to the disaster hitting our kids. Sapien Labs asked questions about adults’ mental health and combined them into a mental health quotient. They asked the same people when they got a smartphone. Some 28,000 people answered and the results were stark: the earlier a person gets a phone, the worse their adult mental health. That was particularly the case for girls.

On new clause 33, we heard from the hon. Member for Twickenham about the mental health challenge. Data from the OECD’s PISA found that, on average, two thirds of 15-year-olds across OECD countries reporting being distracted using digital devices, including phones, in most or every maths class. In addition, around 60% of pupils got distracted by other pupils using digital devices. That PISA data showed a “tangible” association between the use of digital devices in schools and bad learning outcomes. Students who reported being distracted by peers using devices in some or most maths classes scored significantly lower in maths tests, equivalent to three quarters of a year’s-worth of education. The effects are large.

Other studies have found that the use of smartphones in classrooms leads to students engaging in non-school-related activities—unsurprisingly—which adversely affects recall and comprehension. One study found that it can take students up to 20 minutes to refocus on what they were supposed to be learning after engaging in a non-academic activity.

Many parents know the problems with smartphones, but we face a collective action problem. We worry that our kids will miss out if they are the only ones without them, and we need to solve this problem. Across the country, there has been an explosion of parent-powered campaign groups aiming to fight back, including Smartphone Free Childhood, Safe Screens, and Delay Smartphones, to name but a few. They are doing inspiring work. Mumsnet has started a “Rage Against the Screen” campaign.

The Children’s Commissioner said:

“I honestly think that we will look back in 20 years’ time and be absolutely horrified by what we allowed our children to be exposed to.”

She is right. The shift to a screen-based childhood is having bad effects on young people, from mental health to school readiness to children simply turning up exhausted because they have been on their phone all night. These effects are set to widen gaps in achievement unless something decisive is done.

There are many things that the Government should do, but the first is to implement a proper ban on phones in school. The last Government issued guidance, but that is not enough. Although 90% of schools would say that they have some sort of ban, a survey by Policy Exchange last year found that only one in 10 schools had a full start-to-finish ban, which is the policy that we know works best. Lots of schools are still trying policies where kids have phones on them but are not supposed to have them out. The effect is that kids are distracted, teachers have to tell them to put them away, and all the issues to do with bullying and social media are in play during break times and more.

[Ellie Chowns]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for banning smartphones in schools, but does he agree that banning smartphones in schools will not, in and of itself, tackle the problems that he has articulated? A recently published study, the first proper nationwide study of its type, shows that banning smartphones in school does not generate any statistical differences in various outcomes, because there is no difference in the amount of time that children are spending on their devices. Although there are strong arguments for banning them in school—and I recognise that there is a strong call for that from parents, teachers and, indeed, many students—a much more holistic approach is needed to tackle the harms that he has outlined.

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Lady makes a thoughtful point. There is a fantastic meta-analysis published by the London School of Economics and the 5Rights Foundation of all the different studies that have been done on this around Europe. The hon. Lady referred to a specific study, which I hope to speak to the authors about. It is a good study, and perfectly sensible, but the issue is that it cannot find anything statistically significant because it looked at only 30 schools, with a sample size of about 1,200 pupils. It does not look at any natural experiments either, so it does not look at schools that are changing their policies.

Where we have good RCT-like evidence, like in the great study in Spain, where they looked at a province that changed its policy wholesale, we can see from those natural experiments the really powerful effects of in-school policies. I agree with the hon. Lady that this is not the only thing that we should do. The study she mentioned was not wrong; it just could never show us the things that people are interested in. Indeed, there is plenty of other evidence out there in these meta-analyses, and from Jonathan Haidt’s website, of really powerful in-school effects.

A study in the US shows that a class time-only rule does not give teachers as much benefit as they might expect. Research from the National Education Association found that 73% of teachers in schools that allow phone use between classes find that phones are disruptive during classes. The same is true here. The Department for Education’s national behaviour survey, published in April 2024, found that 35% of secondary school teachers reported mobile phones being used during lessons without permission. The problem is more pronounced for older children, unsurprisingly. Some 46% of pupils in years 10 to 11 reported mobile phones being used when they should not have been during “most or all” lessons. That is nearly half of pupils in most or all lessons reporting disruption, so the problem is absolutely there in the DFE’s data.

The idea that guidance has done the trick and that there is no longer a problem to solve is contradicted by the Department’s evidence. Work by the company Teacher Tapp, also known as School Surveys, similarly finds very high levels of problems and no signs of progress. Instead of guidance, all schools should be mandated and funded to have lockers and pouches, and to get kids to put smartphones away for the whole day, including breaks. Schools should be the beachhead and the first place that we re-create a smartphone-free childhood—seven hours in which we de-normalise being on the phone all the time for young people.

Why do we need a full ban, and not just guidance? I already gave some of the data showing that the guidance has not worked, but there are two other reasons. First, we need to support schools and have their back. From speaking to teachers and school leaders, I know that the pressures from parents to allow phones can be really severe on schools. Some parents, unfortunately, can be unreasonably determined that they must be able to contact their child directly at any minute, even though they are perfectly safe in schools. In the sorts of places where three and four-year-olds have smartphones, that is, I am afraid, normalised now, so a national ban would make things simpler and take the heat off schools.

Secondly, a full and total ban is needed as part of a wider resetting of social norms, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, about children and smartphones. Smartphones and social media are doing damage to education even when they are not being used in schools. Our new clause 48 aims to be proportionate, and subsection (2)(b) would allow for exceptions as appropriate, having learned the lessons of what has been done in other countries.

To come to the hon. Lady’s wider point, when I was a Health Minister, I wanted us to get going an equivalent of the famous five bits of fruit and veg a day for this field—other Members might remember “Don’t Die of Ignorance” or “Clunk Click Every Trip”. We need some big things to reset the culture and wake up a lot of people, who are not necessarily going to read Jonathan Haidt’s book, to dangers that they may be unaware of. The heavy exposure of our kids to addictive-by-design products of the tech industry is the smoking of our generation. As with smoking, the tech industry comes up with fake solutions that do not actually make things safe. In the 1950s, it was filters on cigarettes, and now it is the supposed parental filters on social media. Just like with smoking, there is unfortunately a powerful social gradient to unmonitored internet access, with the worst effects on the poorest.

I do not know what Ministers will do about our new clause this time round, and I do not know what they will do as the Bill goes through the other place, but I hope that they will end up implementing this idea at some point. I will take my hat off to them when they do.

[Munira Wilson]

I come at this new clause first and foremost as a parent before I look at it as an MP. Looking at it with both hats on, though, I have long supported the previous Government’s guidance to schools to try to ban mobile phones during the school day. For a long time, I have needed convincing that a legislative ban was required, but I have finally concluded that we probably need to move towards one, partly for the reasons that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston outlined. Some heads and school staff come under a lot of pressure from parents to allow the use of phones during the school day, but if this were a statutory requirement, the Government would have to provide the support needed to implement it.

Just this week, I talked to the headteacher of a secondary school in my constituency. He is very keen to implement a ban on phones during the school day, and he is trying, but kids are getting their phones out at various times and not staying off them. It is a fairly new school, but for some reason it was built without lockers, so there are no lockers. He has looked into purchasing lockers or Yondr pouches—the phone pouches that I believe the Irish Government have bought wholesale for every school in Ireland—and he said that that would cost him about £20,000, which he did not have in his budget. Putting the ban into statute would give headteachers and teaching staff the clout they need with parents who particularly want their children to have their phones during the school day, and the Government would need to resource the ban so that schools could implement it.

I draw Members’ attention to subsection (2) of the new clause, which deals with exemptions, because that is a very important point. Proper exemptions are important for young carers or children with health conditions that need monitoring via apps. School leaders and teachers know their children best, and they know which children need exemptions. I would be interested to know what the consequences would look like—would they fall on the school? I do not think the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston touched on that, but I would be interested in discussing another time how he thinks this ban could be enforced. It is just one of a suite of measures that we as policymakers need to take now, given the harm that phones and access to social media are undoubtedly doing to our children and young people.

--- Later in debate ---

This new clause is interesting in the context of the many Bill Committee sittings in which Conservative Members have accused the Labour Government of using a centralising hand. Rather than sticking with the previous Conservative Government’s guidance to schools, the new clause proposes a ban. The approach feels much more centralising, with far less trust placed in teachers and headteachers, than we might expect based on the last few weeks of discussion.

[Neil O'Brien]

I anticipated that the hon. Member would say something of the sort. His argument is perfectly reasonable, and I tried to answer that exact point in my speech. We think that aspects of the Bill are too micro-managing, but we want central Government to take the heat for schools on this issue. That is both to make it easier for schools and, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, because there should be a proper plan to roll this out at scale, as is happening in other countries in Europe.

[Tom Hayes]

I understood the point that the hon. Member made in his speech, and I understand his clarification. I still struggle to see how the new clause fits in with what I regard as the Conservative party’s ideology around schooling and children’s wellbeing. It feels anomalous to ask headteachers and teachers to work within a ban, rather than trusting them to use the flexibility that the previous Government gave them.

One highlight of the Committee’s debate over the last few weeks has been the recognition that our teachers and headteachers know their students best. It is important that we give them all the trust and support that they deserve. I sympathise with what the hon. Member says about addictive apps, but for me it is not about banning, per se; it is about creating a viable and better alternative that gives children and teenagers much better things to do with their time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Member is right about the difficulty with defining the term smartphone. People talk about a brick phone, a feature phone, a basic phone, a Nokia, a smartphone and an iPhone, but the truth is that there is no definition; smartphone is just a term. It originally came about when people did not want to use the brand name iPhone, because Samsung phones and other types of phone were available. It just means a smarter phone; it has more stuff on it. Some of the things that people worry about are not necessarily only available on smartphones. I looked recently at iMessage, and it is starting to look more like WhatsApp. Anything that can be used for a group chat has some of the issues that we find in schools that cover the teenage and sub-teenage years.

There are other things that people can get on a smartphone but not on a Nokia that are perfectly benign. Some parents are quite keen for their kids to be able to look at the weather. Some are keen to be able to use the tracking device to follow their child, or for their child to be able to use the mapping device to find their way home, so I agree with the hon. Member.

[Neil O'Brien]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Damian Hinds]

This is in danger of turning into a much longer speech than I anticipated.

[Neil O'Brien]

It is good to have this point of clarification. The clause uses the rather quaint phrase “mobile telephones” to capture everything, because the distinction between these devices is blurred. Among those who are interested in the smartphone issue, there is a separate debate about the use of dumbphones for things like walking to and from school, but there is no reason why even a dumbphone cannot cause massive distraction if it is out in class. A child could be texting somebody, for example, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the distinction between these things is blurred these days. That is why we have this catch-all term. It is clear, and it is possible to legislate on that basis, notwithstanding our other discussions outside the scope of this debate.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for refocusing what I was saying, and he is absolutely right. Some of our worries in relation to children apply regardless of the piece of technology. Anything that demands our attention and is ever-present brings such risks.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

We can have the classic, “Oh, the wording is technically flawed” argument—which to be fair to the Government, they have not deployed in this Bill Committee yet. We hope the amendment will be subsumed into the Bill, but the Government would never say, “Oh, we’ll just take that amendment and put it in.” Whoever is in Government never says that; they say, “Right, we accept this point. Now we’ll work on the detailed wording”.

[Neil O’Brien]

To answer the question that the hon. Member for Derby North asked directly, subsection (2)(b) says the policy

“is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate.”

I think this is—

[Catherine Atkinson]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

We have spent a great deal of time in Committee hearing from Opposition Members about autonomy: headteachers’ autonomy, school autonomy, and school leaders knowing exactly what is best for their pupils and communities. Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states that the policy

“is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate”,

but that means that the school leader could choose not to ban mobile phones for anybody in their school; there are exemptions, and they could decide that that is what they need. But that was not what I was going to talk about.

The use of mobile phones in schools should be decided at school level. It should reflect school values, processes and procedures, and not be decided in a directive or legislation from Government. Deciding it at school level would allow for the reasonable use of phones and technology, and it would allow for a balanced approach to technology. It could involve the school community in a discussion about what the phones and technology are being used for—a simple ban would not do that—and could include conversations about digital wellness and promoting healthier relationships, both offline and online, and a healthy approach to using technology at school, in the workplace and in the wider world. If we banned kids from using phones in school, we probably should ban people in their offices and in meetings from using them, because they do not pay attention either. Given how often we look up and see people not even bothering, how on earth can children learn while using mobile phones and technology in a measured and supportive way?

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the Birmingham study from February, which was mentioned previously. It found that banning smartphones in schools did not directly improve student academic performance or mental health. However, that research indicated that excessive phone use correlates with negative outcomes, yet there were no significant differences between the kids who had bans in their school and those who did not. It is about the wider picture, which has been talked about. I also draw the Committee’s attention to a survey conducted in November 2024 of over 1,000 teachers. One in five believed that a school-wide ban would not improve the relationships and attainment levels of children, and 41% agreed that they used smartphones as a teaching tool within their classrooms.

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Lady talks about the use of pupils’ own smartphones as a teaching tool in class. Does she have any worries about the equity of that? What happens to the kids who do not have smartphones in those situations?

[Amanda Martin]

That is a good point. Although we have to resource our schools properly to ensure appropriate iPads and computers that can be used, we would not want the situation the hon. Member described to continue either. We must ensure that schools are resourced.

We have talked about disruption in classrooms, and 20% of teachers said that the unauthorised use of mobile phones was one of the main causes. However, chatter and not sitting still accounted for 80% and 75% respectively, and disrespect to other pupils was much higher than the use of mobile phones. When asked whether a whole-school ban would improve learning, 18% felt that it would, but actually 57% felt that a class size reduction would improve behaviour much more. We need to give our schools the autonomy to have that conversation with their communities and to involve their students. We have student councils and we have parent groups, and we must involve them in the conversations on mobile phone use in schools so that we can teach digital wellness now and for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

Moreover, we can do more to protect children and young people from risk of harm online and on social media when they walk out of the school gates. We have been clear as a Government that our priority is the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act, so that children can benefit from its wide-ranging protections as soon as possible—and be able to safely benefit from technological advances for years to come. I therefore recommend that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston withdraw the new clause.

[Neil O’Brien]

We have had an important and interesting debate, and we have heard a mix of arguments—some better than others, I think. The argument about drafting does not hold water. Subsection (2)(a) talks about students, subsection (4) talks about pupils, and subsection (2)(b) would allow a policy to be implemented in a sensible way. If Members do not agree with the new clause, they can just say so, rather than find lawyerly arguments against it.

However, there were some good points made. More than one thing can be a problem at a time, and this new clause is not the silver bullet. There are lots of problems with smartphone use outside of schools, as well as other things on top of that that we need to do. That is why I talked about this as a beachhead—as the first thing we should do. It is interesting that all over the world things are changing. In the US, the overwhelming majority of states either already have a ban or are on their way legislatively to getting one. The US is ground zero for a lot of these problems, and it is interesting that it is moving to take decisive action. I think we will, too.

For Ministers, there will always be a load of people who want to come to them and say that, “It’s all very complicated—I have been working with the industry,” “It’s correlation not causation,” or, “We should just let be.” There are things in the Bill where the Opposition have been critical of the Government for being more directive than we think is appropriate for the subject. On this issue, however, we think the subject is so important. In this House, we now all talk constantly about the mental health crisis among young people—it is such a big thing. It seems to be pretty incontrovertible that one of the main causes of that is the rise of the smartphone-based childhood. This provision could be an important first step towards tackling that massive national crisis.

I hope that at some point Ministers will think again about the provision when they have more time to reflect. The guidance on its own is not working; we can see from the data that it is not changing things enough. That is why I will press the new clause to a Division.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 70—Appointment of Anti-Bullying Leads—

“In section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Determination by head teacher of behaviour policy), after subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) For the purposes of preventing bullying under subsection (1)(b), the head teacher of a relevant school in England must appoint a member of staff to be the school’s Anti-Bullying Lead.

(2C) The Anti-Bullying Lead will have responsibility for developing the school’s anti-bullying strategy, which must—

(a) outline the steps which will be taken by the school to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils, particularly in relation to those pupils with protected characteristics;

(b) state how incidences of bullying are to be recorded and acted upon by the school; and

(c) detail the training relating to bullying awareness and prevention which will be made available to school staff.””

This new clause would require headteachers to appoint Anti-Bullying Leads, to lead on the development of anti-bullying strategies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

We have a run of new clauses here—49, 50 and 51—and I will speak about them at the appropriate moment. I will not move new clause 50 in the interests of time. During lockdown a lot of parents, including me, gained an even greater respect for the teaching profession, yet we do not treat teachers like other professionals. We do not expect doctors or lawyers to put up with the kind of abuse that is sadly still far too common for schoolteachers. The Bill does many things, some of them good, but as an editorial in the TES pointed out, it is strangely silent on discipline and the right of teachers and pupils to have a safe place to work. To fix that, we have tabled these new clauses, which can be taken together.

The first concerns properly managing and measuring the situation. What gets measured gets managed, but at the moment we have far too little data on the state of discipline in our schools and in alternative provision. That is why new clause 49 provides for an annual report, and it locks in the current national behaviour survey, which is so important and creates wider and regular reporting of Government action on this subject. Endless polls show that it is one of the top issues facing teachers. It is one of the most important things to them, and we know that it drives good people out of this most valuable profession.

New clause 50, which I will not move today, would create an annual report on alternative provision for exactly the same reason, as well as for reasons concerning achievement and behaviour in AP. I will speak about new clause 51 at the appropriate moment, but it is about encouraging Ministers to go further on the discipline agenda, which I know they want to do. It is so vital to academic achievement in our schools, but it is also vital to a decent childhood, to not having to live in fear and to an orderly society.

[Ellie Chowns]

New clause 70 concerns anti-bullying work in schools. Bullying is a serious and a widespread problem. Each year, one in five children report being bullied. It has devastating effects on children’s mental health, their sense of belonging and their ability to thrive. It is a leading cause of school refusal, failure to attend school and disruptive behaviour.

Children who are afraid to attend school miss opportunities to learn and grow. Bullying creates long-term harm. Victims of bullying often suffer lasting consequences into adulthood, including poor mental health, unemployment and a lack of qualifications. People who are bullied may also struggle with relationships and lack life chances. Bullying has unequal effects; it affects different groups unequally. Some groups are significantly more at risk, including children with special educational needs and disabilities, those living in poverty and young carers. Bullying also costs the economy an estimated £11 billion annually due to its impact on education, health and productivity, so it is a serious problem.

The new clause would require the appointment of anti-bullying leads in schools. Evidence shows that a whole-school approach is the most effective way to tackle bullying, but that requires co-ordination by a senior staff member. Appointing an anti-bullying lead potentially alongside and within existing roles such in safeguarding or pastoral support ensures a focused and effective strategy. It is important to record bullying. Systematically recording incidents helps schools to identify patterns, implement interventions and measure progress. This duty, which is already in place in Northern Ireland, can be streamlined with digital tools. Transparent reporting fosters trust, supports accountability and creates safer and more inclusive schools without burdening staff.

It is also important to look at teacher training. Currently, there is no requirement for trainee teachers to receive anti-bullying training, and nearly half—42%—of teachers report feeling ill equipped to address bullying. The new clause will require schools to outline what anti-bullying training is provided to staff. Short, targeted training equips teachers to prevent and respond to bullying effectively, creating safer schools and improving wellbeing and learning outcomes for all pupils.

This matters because of the effects that I talked about on children and young people. We hear heartbreaking stories all the time. The Anti-Bullying Alliance collects testimonies from children and young people. One young person said,

“All the way through year 10 and 11, I ate my lunch in the toilet.”

Another child said that it “scars you for life.” Bullying has devastating effects, but it is not inevitable. With the right systems and the right leadership in place, we can make a difference and make schools safe for everyone. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this new clause.

[Stephen Morgan]

New clause 49 sets out a requirement to publish an annual report on the behaviour of pupils in mainstream state-funded schools, and I will explain why the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston should withdraw it. The Department for Education already publishes the data from the NBS—the National Behaviour Survey—in an annual report. That is publicly available on the gov.uk website.

[Neil O’Brien]

This is a very positive moment. Will the Minister commit to continuing that survey, which is, as he says, so important?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will certainly take that point away.

The NBS reports provide an accurate, timely and authoritative picture of behaviour across England. The surveys allow us to build up a national picture over time, and act as a signpost to what schools need. By triangulating the views of professionals, children and parents, Government officials can gain better understanding of behaviour and of what is needed to support teachers and school leaders in practice. My Department will continue to use data from the NBS to inform future strategy and policy improvements on behaviour in schools.

Mr Betts, you will be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause that I expect to respond to. I conclude by thanking you and all the Chairs for expertly chairing the Committee; all Clerks and civil servants who have supported the smooth running of our proceedings; and all Committee members who have contributed so diligently to this landmark legislation. As a Government, we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for every child in every part of the country. This Bill is one step further in our plan for change for children and families.

New clause 49 creates a redundancy and we do not believe it is necessary to legislate on this issue. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw the clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

I thank the Minister for his kind words.

[Neil O’Brien]

I echo those words, Mr Betts, and I thank the Minister for them.

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s positive comments about the National Behaviour Survey, though we have a paucity of data about this most vital issue, and it would be better to go much further. I also agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, who spoke so powerfully about the impact of bullying. One can never be too much on that absolutely vital issue. We will not press the new clause today, but we look to the Government to go beyond what already exists, and at least to maintain what exists now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 51

Duty for schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police

“(1) Where an act listed in subsection (2) takes place which involves the use or threat of force against a member of a school’s staff, the school must report the incident to the police.

(2) An act must be reported to the police where—

(a) it is directed towards a member of school staff or their property; and

(b) it takes place—

(i) on school property; or

(ii) because of the victim’s status as a member of a school’s staff.

(3) The provisions of this section do not require or imply a duty on the police to take specific actions in response to such reports.” —(Neil O’Brien.)

This new clause would create a duty for all schools to report acts or threats of violence against their staff to the police. It would not create a requirement for the police to charge the perpetrator.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

This new clause is a continuation of the debate we were just having. It is time to ensure that all acts and threats of violence against teachers are reported to the police. It is very clear from the drafting of the clause that we are not looking to criminalise children, but we should not expect teachers to suck up abuse that we would never expect other professionals to. If we log what is going on, we have a chance of avoiding things that can escalate over time.

At the moment in Scotland, members of NASUWT are taking industrial action because of the failure of authorities to create discipline. The unions say that teachers

“report being told at debriefing meetings that their lessons are ‘not fun or engaging enough’”

That is absolutely extraordinary. NASUWT notes:

“A culture where there are no consequences for poor behaviour is not setting up pupils well for adult life and fails the employers’ duty of care towards its staff”.

It also says:

“The wholesale adoption of the restorative approach to pupil discipline has definitely been a problem”.

Mike Corbett of NASUWT said:

“You can’t offer a quiet chat and no serious consequences for this level of disruptive behaviour.”

We find ourselves, on this matter, in total agreement with the teaching unions and their wise words on this subject. In England, a Channel 4 exposé sadly showed the incredible extent of the problem and why we need to do far more to address it.

We want those who would lift their hands to a teacher and engage in an act of violence, intimidation or threat to know that it will absolutely be reported to the police. It is sometimes good to make a credible pre-commitment to things, and people need to know it is never acceptable to do those things. They need to know that there will be automatic consequences and that they should not expect that people will just turn the other cheek. People who are trying to help them—dedicating their lives to helping them—should not be used as punch bags. That is only one of the things we need to do, but this new clause is about resetting expectations around behaviour. If the Government will not support the new clause as drafted, we hope that they will support some version of it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I agree with the sentiments behind the new clause. Any form of violence in school is completely and utterly unacceptable and should not be tolerated. By law, schools must have a behaviour policy. In the most serious cases, suspensions and permanent exclusion may be necessary to ensure that teachers and pupils are protected from disruption.

Schools or trusts as employers already have a statutory duty, outlined in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of school staff at work. Where violence is involved on school premises, schools should take immediate and appropriate action. Should the incident constitute a potential criminal offence, it is for the school as an employer to consider involving the police, having followed the advice contained in the “When to call the police” guidance for schools and colleges by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, written in partnership with the Department for Education and the Home Office.

There are already appropriate provisions and guidance for schools to prevent and respond to violence on their premises. That includes guidance on when to involve the police, so the new clause is likely to impose an additional administrative burden on school leaders. Clearly, important points have been made, but, on the basis I have outlined, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the clause.

[Neil O’Brien]

I absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiment—of course she wants only the right thing for pupils and teachers. However, I will push the new clause to a vote, because we want to think about how we can go further on all these things to create the safe workplace that both teachers and pupils deserve.

In another part of the forest, there is an argument about non-crime hate incidents and logging them. The arguments made by the Government about logging them is that one thing leads to another. As I said before, we do not wish to criminalise children, but logging where actual acts of violence are taking place is an important resource for the police and other social services. We think that something along those lines would be useful, and I am keen to push this to a vote, but I know the Minister will think about everything extra that she can do to try to create a safe workplace.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Government are obviously reviewing the national curriculum at the moment. During our earlier debates in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out that control of the national curriculum is an incredible power, yet, to date, it has operated really on precedent, custom, tradition and everyone being reasonable. This new clause aims to formalise that process a bit more.

At the moment, of course, the Government are taking advice from an independent review—very sensibly—but, legally, they do not actually have to take account of that; they could make whatever decision they wanted. In another Bill—the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill—the Government are centralising control over a whole bunch of stuff about qualifications and standards.

This new clause just sets up, for the first time, a proper process to formalise how the national curriculum is revised. It is an incredibly strong power and yet it is one that has operated—in one sense, nobly—on the assumption of everyone just behaving reasonably and people being “good chaps”, as it were, in the old parlance. This measure would put an actual formal legal process around such hugely important changes.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The current system for reviewing the curriculum works well, as the ongoing independent curriculum and assessment review shows, and has stood the test of time for successive Governments. The legislation gives Ministers the flexibility to review and develop the curriculum in the most appropriate way for the circumstances of the time, while requiring them to consult, and to provide Parliament with appropriate levels of scrutiny.

Requiring the creation of new organisations and processes is rarely the best way to improve outcomes. The proposed system would be inflexible and bureaucratic rather than helpful. New clause 55 would mean that, following any review of whether to change the national curriculum, such as through our curriculum and assessment review, the Secretary of State would have to set up another independent review to advise how to change the programmes of study.

Also, by requiring a positive, rather than negative, resolution of changes, and of any changes beyond the review’s recommendations, this measure could add unnecessary delays and uncertainty for teachers about what was going to be changed in the curriculum and when. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

[Neil O’Brien]

While our concerns remain, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 58

Right to review school curriculum material

“Where requested by the parent or carer of a child on the school’s pupil roll, a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum, including those provided by external, third-party, charitable or commercial providers.”—(Neil O’Brien.)

This new clause would ensure that parents can view materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. 

Over recent years, we have been in an absolutely extraordinary situation. Very controversial materials from various third party private providers have been used in RSE—relationships and sex education—lessons, yet parents have been denied access to the materials that are being used to teach their children, even though it is them paying, as taxpayers, and it is their children who are being exposed to these materials. That is obviously unacceptable.

Various private providers of this material, including for-profit companies, have tried to hide behind copyright law, or have tried to make parents sign agreements, such as that they can see the materials, but only on the strict conditions that they do not quote from them or talk about them, effectively crippling and ending public debate about them. Parents need to see, and to be able to act upon what they see, including discussing it in public and making formal complaints. That requires having a copy of the material and being able to refer to it openly.

An important case brought by the campaign group “No Secret Lessons” may establish such rights, but, despite a hearing five months ago, we are still—strangely—awaiting a verdict in its case. I pay tribute to its work in trying to bring back some common sense here.

New clause 58 seeks to put into statute the right to have access to the materials that are being used to educate our children about controversial subjects. That, itself, should not be a controversial idea. The intent is that this right, in primary legislation, would cut through the issues around copyright and prevent the industry from trying to stop public discussion that actually needs to happen.

The context is that the Government’s response to the consultation on gender-questioning children and RSE is long overdue, and we look forward to hearing the outcome of those processes soon. I hope that the Minister may be able to say some more about when we can expect to see those things.

However, whatever the outcome of those reviews, I hope that we can agree on an important principle: that parents should be allowed to know what their children are being taught, and that there should be no secret lessons.

[Tom Hayes]

I wish to speak briefly about the new clause, mainly to test the waters with the hon. Gentleman who tabled it. Does he, like me, have concerns that, if parents and carers are able to access teaching materials, they may meet with the teachers who drew up the materials and raise significant concerns, which may not always be well founded?

For instance, a teacher I spoke with recently raised concerns about a parent who had demanded to see their teaching materials on the basis that they cited Marcus Rashford as an example of somebody campaigning for social justice, which the parent was deeply concerned about. The teacher raised with me their concern that the conversation with the parent had had a chilling or stifling effect on their willingness to cite Marcus Rashford as a social justice hero in the future.

Would it not be a better way forward for teachers to be held accountable for their materials by the headteacher and the school’s governing body? That would protect parents or guardians from the minority of parents or carers who raise concerns based on unfounded reasons that have a wider impact on the teaching that is delivered.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way so that I can directly answer the question he posed to me. The problem is not schools, which are bound by freedom of information, but a bunch of private for-profit providers that are inappropriately hiding behind copyright law to deny people the right to even see what is being taught. Different people can have different opinions on what is being taught—that is reasonable in a democracy, and it is important that we have sensibly founded conversations and all those things—but does the hon. Member agree that, given that a parent is paying for their kid’s education, they should have the right to see what they are being taught?

[Tom Hayes]

I welcome that clarification. I continue to have concerns, because whether or not somebody is paying for their child’s education—I would obviously wish that they were not paying—I still think it is important to have quality education and critical thinking and to potentially use inspirational figures and history to make points. That goes across all types of educational provider, so my concern remains. Thinking back to the conversation I had recently with a teacher, the last thing I want is for them to go into a classroom feeling wary or in any way diminished in their ability to freely and critically educate and provide children with access to all kinds of information, and not just narrow viewpoints.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is right that parents and carers should be able to access and understand what their child is taught at school, so that they can continue to support their child’s learning at home and answer questions. However, that should be achieved in a way that does not increase school and teacher workload.

The new clause could require schools to maintain and collate a substantial number of materials across various platforms, covering all subjects and school years, down to every single worksheet, presentation, planning document or text. That is not necessary. There are already many ways in which parents can engage with their child’s curriculum that would not add to teacher workload. The national curriculum, which will be taught in academies and maintained schools, is published on gov.uk. Maintained schools and academies are required to publish details of how a parent can access further information about the school’s curriculum.

Schools must also have a written policy for relationships and sex education, which must be developed in consultation with parents. The statutory guidance is clear that this should include providing examples of the resources they intend to use, to reassure parents and enable them to continue conversations at home. We will make sure that that is reinforced when we update the guidance. Finally, parents can be reassured that Ofsted reviews curriculum materials to ensure that they support pupils to achieve good outcomes.

The new clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of a widespread problem that would justify the extra burden and bureaucracy it would create for schools. If parents have concerns, there are ways of dealing with them. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

[Neil O'Brien]

I listened to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East and, broadly speaking, agree with everything he said. I am absolutely in favour of a balanced diet and the free exchange of different ideas, and nothing we are proposing in any way speaks against that. What we propose is in fact a way to ensure that that happens, by allowing parents to see what their children are being taught.

I find myself out of sympathy with the Minister’s argument that this is somehow a massive bureaucratic requirement. With state schools, there is FOI, so parents are able to access these materials. The problem has come with private providers using copyright law to escape the same transparency that we expect of schools normally, which is not right.

I do not accept that the new clause would require people to have 20 years-worth of materials. It simply states that

“a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum”.

That is in the present tense, so this is not some huge bureaucratic burden. The school has the materials, and the only question is whether the parents can see them, take them away and talk about them to other people.

At the moment, free debate on such things is being stifled, and a hugely important principle is being denied to people. We have a right to see what our kids are being taught in schools. For that reason, we will press the new clause to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O'Brien]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As Ministers look at new clause 63, they may think it seems strangely familiar, and I must confess that it is a piece of stolen intellectual property. As you will recognise, Mr Betts, it is a rip-off of new Labour’s Education Act 2002. Funnily enough, it is a part of that Act that was passed as legislation but never commenced. It is a good thing in itself, as it enables Ministers to set up areas of innovation in our schools, and it is a part of a wider good thing: the spirit of innovation and reform in our schools of the early Blair years, which we want Ministers to return to.

In the health service, there has been a 40-year discussion about why innovation is so hard and why innovations do not spread in the NHS. In schools, although the situation is not perfect, it is definitely better because of parental choice and the reforms under Lord Baker, Lord Adonis, the coalition and beyond. I commend to all members of the Committee Lord Adonis’s superb book “Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools”, which brilliantly captures the spirit of that era and what that Government were trying to achieve.

Although we think this would be a useful power, our purpose of drawing attention to it is as much about the spirit of what we want to see in our schools. There have been some changes of tone from Ministers during the course of this Bill Committee, and we hope we can persuade them to go further in the same direction. That is why we have discussed this new clause, but we will not be pressing it to a vote.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Things really can only get better—[Laughter.]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the existing provision in part 1 of the Education Act 2002, and his open admission that the new clause draws its inspiration from it. That Act, in the early days of academies, introduced powers to facilitate innovation that were designed to encourage schools to consider barriers to raising standards for their pupils in their particular circumstances, and to explore innovative options that might not previously have been considered. It provided a means of promoting school freedoms and flexibilities, and was an effective strategic tool that enabled schools, local authorities and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, as it was, to test new ideas. It encouraged schools and local authorities to re-examine their existing practices and make use of freedoms and flexibilities that they already had. It was not designed to allow long-term flexibility, as this new clause is; rather any exemption is time limited.

The Act provoked consideration of real and perceived barriers to raising standards, and many schools discovered that not all innovative ideas require an exemption from legislation, because the necessary freedoms and flexibilities already exist. Annual reporting shows that only 32 orders were made between 2002 and 2010 using the power. We understand that the last order under the power was made in 2012. Since then, schools and trusts have innovated and tested ideas without the 2002 powers being necessary or used. Evidence-based practice and innovation is now the norm in many of our schools and trusts. There is a range of programmes, such as curricular hubs, behaviour hubs and teaching schools, geared to driving schools towards spreading evidence-based practice, and away from doing other things.

The Department works closely with the Education Endowment Foundation, which is independent from Government and trusted by the sector, to understand which interventions and approaches are most effective in terms of school improvement and raising attainment, and to provide guidance and support to schools on that. As part of that, it carries out trials of new approaches that look to have a high potential to improve outcomes. Where a new and innovative practice works, we want schools to be able to implement it. For example, based on robust EEF evidence of impact, programmes such as embedding formative assessments and mathematics mastery are being provided to the sector at greater scale, supported by Department for Education funding that subsidises the cost of participation.

The Bill guarantees a core provision for all children. Through it, we are providing a floor, not a ceiling, and the measures do not prevent schools and trusts from innovating and adapting above that framework. Our vision for driving high and rising standards centres on expert teaching and leadership in a system with wide freedoms, high support and high challenge, backed up by the removal of barriers, so that every child can achieve and thrive. We believe that more of the flexibility currently offered to academies should be offered to all schools, and we are working with teachers, leaders and the sector to design our wider reforms. If attempts to innovate are prevented by legislation, we want to hear about it, because we want all children to benefit from the best the system has to offer. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw his new clause.

[Neil O'Brien]

It is nice to hear the Minister praising the resources that are there for school-led improvement, so we hope that Ministers will look again at the recent decision to cut or curtail things such as mathematics, physics, Latin, computing and the like. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 64

Pay and conditions of school support staff in England

“(1) A School Support Staff Negotiating Body shall be created to make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the pay and conditions of school support staff in England.

(2) The Secretary of State may by order set out the recommended pay and conditions for school support staff in England based on the recommendations of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring the remuneration of support staff at an Academy school to be at least equal to the amount specified in, or determined in accordance with, the order.

(4) Subsection (5) applies where—

(a) an order under this section applies to a member of school support staff at an Academy, and

(b) the contract of employment or for services between the member of school support staff at the Academy and the relevant proprietor provides for the member of school support staff to be paid remuneration that is less than the amount specified in, or determined in accordance with, the order.

(5) Where this subsection applies—

(a) the member of school support staff’s remuneration is to be determined and paid in accordance with any provision of the order that applies to them; and

(b) any provision of the contract mentioned in subsection (4)(b) or of the Academy arrangements entered into with the Secretary of State by the relevant proprietor has no effect to the extent that it makes provision that is prohibited by, or is otherwise inconsistent with, the order.

(c) In determining the conditions of employment or service of a member of school support staff at an Academy, the relevant proprietor must have regard to any provision of an order under this section that relates to conditions of employment or service.”—(Neil O’Brien.)

This new clause would mean that Academies could treat orders made by the Secretary of State in relation to pay and conditions for school support staff as a floor, not a ceiling, on pay, and would allow Academies to have regard to the conditions of employment for school support staff set out by the Secretary of State while not requiring Academies to follow them.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O'Brien]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Minister just talked about the principle of having a floor, not a ceiling. Through our debates, we have now established that for teachers, but of course teachers are not a majority of the school workforce. The majority of the workforce are those who are sometimes called school support staff. These people are no less worthy than teachers of our praise and admiration. They fulfil all manner of roles, from the most essential to the most demanding.

Through this new clause, we ask that the same principles that are to be applied to teachers’ pay—we hope that those will translate into reality—should apply to the majority of school staff: school support staff. Although trust leaders anticipated the school support staff negotiating body, some were surprised about the proposal for it to cut across academy funding arrangements, and not all had anticipated that it would apply to them. A number have said to me that they will be very concerned if their freedoms to pay more to retain the best school support staff were, in effect, taken away from them, because that would have a devastating effect on their schools.

Legislation on this issue is being considered in another place, but I hope that we can establish that Ministers will maintain that vital freedom to pay more, particularly in high-demand areas, to retain good people in our schools. A person does not have to be a teacher to play a crucial part in the education of our children, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We hope that the same principles that Ministers say will apply to teachers can also be established for the rest of the school workforce.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s celebration of school support staff. He is absolutely right: they are the beating heart of schools up and down the country. For that very reason, provisions to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body are currently going through Parliament as part of the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill’s clause 30 and schedule 3, which pertain to the SSSNB, were debated in Committee in the House of Commons on 17 December 2024, and the Bill is about to move to Report stage in the House. Any amendments relating to the school support staff negotiating body should therefore be considered as part of the Employment Rights Bill, and the issues that the hon. Gentleman outlined will be considered as part of the work of the school support staff negotiating body. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.

[Neil O'Brien]

I am glad to hear the Minister endorse the principle of a floor, not a ceiling, for school support staff. We will withdraw the new clause but press it elsewhere, so that we can establish that principle, on which I hope we can all agree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 67

Registration of children eligible for free school meals

“After section 512ZA of the Education Act 1996 (power to charge for meals etc.) insert—

‘512ZAA Registration of children eligible for free school meals

(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that all children in England who are eligible to receive free school meals are registered to receive free school meals.

(2) The Secretary of State may make provision for children to be registered for free school meals upon their parents or guardians demonstrating the child’s eligibility through an application for relevant benefits.’”—(Munira Wilson.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The arguments around this issue are reasonably well known, so I will be brief. This discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there, which it did because a local inquiry would not have the powers that are needed. For example, a local inquiry cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men leading the local investigation in Greater Manchester resign because they felt they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry, and that there should be local inquiries instead.

However, there have been years during which those places could have held their own local inquiries, but they have not. In many cases, as is well known, local officials at different levels were part of the problem, and even part of the deflection, so they cannot be the people to fix it. In Keighley, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years, but even as Ministers argued in the House that there should be local inquiries, local politicians decided again not to hold one.

In these debates the Government often refer to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which was an important first step, but it was not—indeed, it was never intended to be—a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. IICSA looked at about half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were between 40 to 50 places where those gangs operated, and the inquiry touches on them very lightly and does not look at the places where there were the most severe problems. It means that victims in those places have never had a chance to be heard.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome what the hon. Member says about the importance of victims, as they must be at the centre of all we do in this area. Will he outline whether he has met any victims of child sexual abuse in the past 12 months, and if he has, what they have said about the new clause? Is the new clause based on conversations with victims?

[Neil O’Brien]

The new clause is based on calls by victims for a national inquiry; I was about to come to that point. Having a proper national inquiry does not stop us from getting on and implementing any of the recommendations in the previous report. Indeed, awareness raising was one of the recommendations that was made. Without a national inquiry, we will clearly not get to the bottom of this issue, and people who looked the other way, or who covered up or deflected, will not be held to account for doing that. So far, nobody in authority has been held to account.

The Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester and the hon. Members for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) have backed some form of national inquiry, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that there should be a national inquiry if victims wanted one. Numerous victims are calling for an inquiry, so the real question is what we are waiting for.

[Tom Hayes]

Again, you are talking about victims—

[Neil O’Brien]

I am not the Chair.

[Tom Hayes]

I apologise; that is a good point. The hon. Member is talking about victims and what they want, so I return to the question that I asked: has he met victims of child sexual abuse when tabling this new clause—yes or no?

[Neil O’Brien]

As a constituency MP I have met victims of sexual abuse, yes, and it is clear, if people have been following the debate, that victims are calling for an inquiry. Indeed, numerous people in the Labour party agree that we should have a proper inquiry, for all the reasons that Oldham originally asked for one, namely that it does not have the powers locally to get to the truth and to get justice for the victims. The new clause would create a national inquiry and we hope that at some point the Government will support it so that justice can be done and those who have let victims down can finally be held to account.

[Tom Hayes]

I want to press the point about whether any victims of child sexual abuse have been directly consulted about the proposed new clause. Before I became an MP I ran a service to support victims of child sexual abuse. I have sat with survivors and listened to some of the stories they have shared about the worst things that could happen to a human being, in order to understand the difficulties and trauma that they are experiencing. I know that rebuilding their life will involve many long years of painstaking support alongside many types of services, and I know that what they need most is the implementation of the national inquiry that has already concluded, which heard from many victims of child sexual abuse.

Having sat with and listened to victims of abuse, my big concern is that not implementing those recommendations will be a signal to them that all they have shared and said—after significant difficulty—will have been discarded. That will make people who have gone through awful experiences that have made them feel as though they lack dignity, once again feel as though the system that was there to support and listen to them has let them down, and that as a consequence they are not worthy of the dignity that, as human beings, they really ought to be entitled to.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is wrong to pretend that IICSA was a report into the grooming gangs. It was not; it was never intended to be. It looked a tiny handful of places, so many of the people who were affected by that scandal have never had the chance to have their story told. It has never been clear why having a new national inquiry would prevent us from implementing any of those previous things—it obviously would not. The argument that the Government cannot do two things at the same time is clearly wrong, so it cannot be used as an excuse not to listen to all those who have never had the chance to tell their story.

[Tom Hayes]

I believe that the Minister may be coming to that point very soon, and I am excited to hear your response to what she says—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Member is in danger of literally saying it is too expensive to get to the truth. He just said that the cost of a national inquiry was the obstacle to having one. I really hope that he will rethink that point.

[Tom Hayes]

I disagree strongly with the hon. Member. He knows exactly what I said, and he is choosing to put words into my mouth, as he has chosen to put words into the mouths of many other Committee members. If he wants to play that game, let us talk about whether he has focused properly on child sexual abuse in his time as an MP, quite apart from whether he spoke with any victims or survivors before tabling the amendment.

The hon. Member has been in this House since 8 June 2017, a total of 2,849 days. It took him 2,801 days before he spoke in Parliament for the first time about child sexual abuse. He may say, “Of course, I was a Minister for some of that time,” so I calculated the amount of time that you were a Minister. It is approximately 25% of your total time as an MP. I think it is important, obviously—

--- Later in debate ---

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said that we needed another national inquiry on grooming gangs because the IICSA inquiry “barely touches on them”. He has repeated that on multiple occasions today. IICSA, as is common practice in a public inquiry, involved a series of smaller inquiries of investigations of different strands. One of those inquiries was child sexual exploitation by organised networks. The inquiry into organised networks, the entire focus of which was grooming gangs, took two years and reported three years ago, in February 2022.

[Neil O’Brien]

Could the hon. Lady say how many different places it looked at?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will come to that. First, I make the point that I have the report in my hands; it is an inch thick, printed double-sided and it is nearly 200 pages. That is the specific inquiry into organised networks. Its contents are horrific, and I hope that by the end of my contribution, we will cease to hear the shadow Minister referring to the fact that it “barely touches” on grooming gangs.

For clarity, organised networks that conduct child sexual exploitation, as anyone who has carried out work in child protection will know, are grooming gangs. Organised networks are defined in this report as

“two or more individuals…who are known to (or associated with) one another”.

Section C.3 of the report sets out carefully why that definition was used. In comparison, new clause 15 seeks to define grooming gangs as a group of at least three adult males. As we saw in the convictions of women involved in grooming gangs in Rotherham, Newcastle and elsewhere, involvement in grooming gangs is not limited to men. Sadly, several of the cases mentioned in the investigation into grooming gangs make it clear that they are not always adults, as older children and teenagers can also be involved in grooming.

A further justification for another inquiry, as we heard from the shadow Minister, was that the previous inquiry covered just half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated—namely, the areas covered by Durham county council, the City and County of Swansea council, Warwickshire county council, St Helens council in Merseyside, the London borough of Tower Hamlets and Bristol city council. The shadow Minister knows, I assume, that that was a deliberate sampling of local authorities from across England and Wales, and they were selected not because grooming gangs operated there—I do not think that was necessarily even known at the time of selection—but to consider a range of features including size, demography, geography and social characteristics. It was to illustrate different policies, practices and performance. It was a deliberate choice not to look again at areas like Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford, which had already been the subject of independent investigation. Sampling, and looking at particular case studies like this, is very common and good practice in public inquiries. The fact that there were cases of child sexual exploitation by gangs in all six of the case study areas clearly indicated how common and pervasive this disgusting crime is.

On Second Reading, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), implied that there was new information that child sexual exploitation takes place in many areas. He said:

“We now believe that as many as 50 towns could have been affected”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 564.]

But as the previous specific inquiry made clear three years ago, on page 4, when it comes to grooming gangs:

“Any denial of the scale of child sexual exploitation—either at national level or locally in England and Wales—must be challenged.”

In looking at whether new clause 15 is a rerun of questions IICSA already considered in the previous specific inquiry into grooming gangs, it is helpful to cross-refer the contents of new clause 15 with the scope of the previous investigations into grooming gangs, which is set out on page 148 of this report. New clause 15(2)(a) seeks an inquiry into grooming gangs to

“identify common patterns of behaviour and offending”.

But the scope of the previous grooming gangs inquiry states that it will investigate “the nature” of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs.

New clause 15(2)(b) and (c) seek another inquiry to look at the

“type, extent and volume of crimes”

and “the number of victims”. The specific inquiry looked at the “extent” of sexual exploitation.

New clause 15(2)(e) seeks a new inquiry to identify failings by

“(i) police,

(ii) local authorities,

(iii) prosecutors,

(iv) charities,

(v) political parties,

(vi) local…government,

(vii) healthcare providers…or

(viii) other agencies or bodies”.

But the grooming gangs inquiry investigated and considered the institutional responses to the sexual exploitation of children, and that specific inquiry also examined the extent to which

“children who were subjected to child sexual exploitation were known to local authorities and other public authorities such as law enforcement agencies, schools and/or the NHS”.

It also examined the extent to which

“relevant public authorities…effectively identified the risk of child sexual exploitation in communities and took action to prevent it”.

It examined the extent to which

“the response of the constituent parts of the criminal justice system was appropriate in cases of child sexual exploitation”.

The inquiry into grooming gangs heard from complainants, academics, local authorities, police officers, voluntary sector representatives, Government officials and representatives from victim support and campaign groups—a list that looks very similar to that set out at new clause 15(2)(e).

New clause 15(2)(g) seeks to “identify good practice” in protecting children. Was that left out of the previous inquiry? No, because paragraph 2.5 of the scope of the investigation makes it clear that the inquiry would also examine

“effective strategies…implemented to prevent child sexual exploitation in the future, and to monitor the safety of vulnerable children including missing children”.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston accused the Government of not wanting to

“hear the voices of the victims.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 951.].

The new clause compounds the last Government’s crime of not listening to the victims when they had the chance to implement the recommendations of the specific national grooming gangs inquiry and the wider IICSA recommendations.

What new clause 15—the hon. Gentleman’s blueprint for a new inquiry—does not include is any requirement to look at the extent to which recommendations in previous reports and reviews were implemented by relevant public authorities at national and local levels. That requirement was in the previous grooming gangs inquiry, which was an attempt to build on learning rather than to be a rerun of previous inquiries. The previous grooming gangs inquiry notes that more than 400 previous recommendations were considered in this, as well as those arising from other recent reports and inquiries. This would be an obvious inclusion in any future inquiry, unless we did not want to draw attention to the previous Government’s failure to carry out a single one of the recommendations of the specific investigation into grooming gangs, or in the wider independent inquiry into child sexual abuse more broadly.

The three main functions of public inquiries are to investigate what happened, why it happened, and what can be done to prevent it happening again. Inquiries can make recommendations. What they cannot do is implement those recommendations; that is our job. Professor Alexis Jay, who knows more about this than anyone on this Committee, does not call for another national inquiry. She says that a new inquiry would cause further delay.

Having spent seven of my 17 years as a barrister on a public inquiry—although not into grooming gangs or the broader IICA—I can say quite forcefully that there is a universal principle here. Public inquiries cost time and enormous amounts of public money, but the biggest tab that they run up is in the hope that they give to victims—the hope that what they suffered will not be suffered in future by others. We must pay our debt to the victims by fully responding to the recommendations and implementing them where we can. If we call for inquiry after inquiry along the same lines, we are undermining the whole system of public inquiries, including public trust in them and public tolerance for the resources of the state that they demand. Therefore, rather than the gesture politics of rerunning an inquiry without the evidence and data that we need, it is the Government’s approach that makes sense, with Baroness Louise Casey’s audit to fill in the gaps that have already been identified by the previous inquiry.

This Government are setting up a new victims and survivors panel not just to guide Ministers on the design, delivery and implementation of plans on IICSA, but to produce wider work around child sexual exploitation and abuse. In the policing and crime Bill, they are making it mandatory to report abuse and will make it an offence to fail to report, or to cover up, child sexual abuse, as well as introducing further measures to tackle those organising online child sex abuse. They are legislating to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences. They are already drawing up a duty of candour as part of the long-awaited Hillsborough law. And they are overhauling the information and evidence that is gathered on child sexual abuse and exploitation to implement the first recommendation of IICSA on a single core dataset on child abuse and protection.

New clause 15(2)(d) seeks to identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs. Sections B.5 and H.5 of the 2022 inquiry into grooming gangs identified the widespread failure to record the ethnicity of perpetrators and victims and the inconsistency of definitions in the data, which meant that the limited research available relied on poor-quality data.

Recommendation 5 from the report in February 2022 relates to child sexual exploitation data and states that the data must include

“the sex, ethnicity and disability of both the victim and perpetrator”.

In the final list of IICSA recommendations from October 2022, it was the first recommendation—a single core set of data. We do not have a core dataset, and the ethnicity data that was published in November from police forces has been found to be haphazard, because there is not a proper system for collecting data. It is this Government who have committed to gathering and publishing new ethnicity data, and it is this Government who are providing backing for local inquiries that can delve into local detail and deliver more locally relevant answers and change than a lengthy national inquiry of the type that I was involved in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will not, because I am nearly finished—the right hon. Gentleman will then be able to speak about whatever he wants. Grabbing at headlines to call for an inquiry to address the same questions already asked in a national inquiry at the expense of a Bill that will protect children—

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I want to point out a tension between the arguments that we have heard. One type of argument says that the job is done; there is nothing more to find out. It dismisses calls for further work as “gesture politics”—that is one phrase that we heard this morning. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said that the grooming gangs had been “fully investigated”. I do not believe that, nor do the victims—in fact, not a single official has been held to account. More importantly perhaps, the Government do not believe it either. They argue that more work is needed—the disagreement is simply whether there should be local inquiries rather than a national inquiry. Members continue to make arguments that the Government were perhaps making at the start of the year, but that is not where the Government are now.

[Tom Hayes]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point that members of this Committee have said, in so many words, that the job is done and we do not have anything more to learn, I want to be categorical in saying that those are not the words that I use and I did not imply that in anything that I said. I look to Committee colleagues to nod if they agree. All people who spoke today have nodded to affirm that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is not a true representation of what in fact they were saying or even implying, so may I please ask him to withdraw that statement?

[Neil O’Brien]

The people who read the transcript of this debate or perhaps have been listening to it at home can judge for themselves whether what I said was a fair summary of the arguments put forward by Government Members.

[Catherine McKinnell]

On the point about putting words in people’s mouths, nobody has said this is job done—quite the contrary. What we have consistently said is that we do not believe another national inquiry is needed. The Alexis Jay report took seven years, engaged 7,000 victims and had 15 separate strands. In the last 12 years, we have had hundreds of inquiries, serious case reviews and 600 recommendations. It is time for action. It is time to put this into practice and provide the justice that these victims deserve. That is what this Government are focused on doing.

[Neil O’Brien]

I wonder whether the Minister agreed with the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen, who said that the grooming gangs had been “fully investigated”. Does she agree with that? I am happy to take another intervention if she does. She does not want to stand up and say that she agrees with her hon. Friend, so the tension I pointed out is real. On one hand there is an argument that there is nothing more to be found out; everyone who should be held to account has been held to account; and we must not go back into it—there is no need to go back into it. On the other hand there is the Government’s admission that we need more local inquiries.

This whole discussion did not start with some person on social media. This whole conversation started because Oldham council formally asked for a national inquiry into what happened there, and it did so because it did not have, at local level, the powers needed: it cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath or requisition evidence. It was that request from a council—a good and sensible request—that started this discussion. I have already listed some of the Labour people who have argued for a national inquiry. I hope that in the end they will win the argument in the Labour party, but until then, I want to put the new clause to the vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Trust Capacity Fund—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, establish a Trust Capacity Fund.

(2) The purpose of the Trust Capacity Fund will be to support the growth of multi-academy trusts.

(3) The Trust Capacity Fund may provide funding to maintained schools and academy trusts which—

(a) are considered by the Education and Skills Funding Agency to be of sound financial health; and

(b) have an eligible growth project that has been approved by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify applications for funding to which the Trust Capacity Fund will give particular regard, which may include applications from trusts—

(a) taking on or formed from schools which have received specified judgements in their most recent inspections; or

(b) taking on or comprising schools in Education Investment Areas.

(5) The Secretary of State must provide the Trust Capacity Fund with such funding and resources as are required for the carrying out of its duties.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Trust Capacity Fund to support the growth of multi-academy trusts.

[Neil O’Brien]

The proposed new clauses press the Government to restore some schemes they have cut, namely the academy conversion support grant and the trust capacity fund. The latter spent about £126 million over the last Parliament, helping to grow and deepen strong trusts, helping them to do more to help their schools, and helping to create a self-improving system. Unfortunately, the fund was ended on 1 January this year. Its closure is a real loss and there is uncertainty now about who is responsible for school improvement in the Government’s vision. Is that still to be trust-led, or will it be led by RISE from the centre? What happens if ideas from RISE conflict with those of a trust?

The removal of that funding sharpens the sense of a shift away from trusts as the engine for school improvement. The Confederation of School Trusts has said that this funding

“has been very successful in enabling trusts to support maintained schools that need help, especially in areas with a history of poor education outcomes…That will become more difficult to do now. Trust leaders will be especially angry that Ministers have scrapped this summer’s funding round: trusts spent considerable time and effort creating bids and have been waiting for a decision for four months…School trusts have a wealth of experience in school improvement but sharing that effectively takes time and money, and we need to make sure that the wider school sector doesn’t suffer from this decision.”

The confederation also says that it is “incredibly disappointed” at the decision to withdraw the academy conversion grant. It says:

“Ending this grant will leave, in particular, smaller primary schools very vulnerable and without the financial and educational sustainability that comes from being part of a trust. It is a short-sighted decision that will weaken the school system.”

It adds that that will have

“clear consequences for the strength and sustainability of our school system…This is not a neutral decision and will impact the capacity of the system to keep improving.”

Forum Strategy, another membership organisation for school trust leaders, has said of the decision to cut this funding:

“It is difficult to see the vision or strategy that leads to these decisions, or what it means for making the most of the capacity and expertise of the school-led improvement system.”

I hope that Ministers will listen to school leaders and reverse the decisions, as the proposed new clauses suggest.

[Catherine McKinnell]

We have made it clear that the Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity, by driving high and rising standards, so that all children are supported to achieve and thrive. The Government are focused on improving outcomes for all children, regardless of the type of school they attend. Our energies and funding are tilted towards that, including through the new regional improvement for standards and excellence teams.

Nevertheless, we want high-quality trusts to continue to grow where schools wish to join them and there is a strong case for them to do so. We know that where schools have worked together, sharing their knowledge and expertise, as happens in our best multi-academy trusts and best local authorities, we can secure the highest standards and best outcomes for our children.

We will continue to consider applications from trusts that want to transfer their schools to a high-quality academy trust, or where there is a need locally to form new trusts through consolidation or merger. In September, the Government were supporting a higher number of schools through the process of converting to academy status than at any point under the previous Government, since at least 2018. Voluntary conversion remains a choice for schools. The Government believe that the benefits, including the financial benefits, of joining a strong structure are well understood, and for most schools and trusts that will mean that the case for converting will still outweigh the costs.

It was the previous Government who decided to significantly curtail the availability of the conversion grant—a decision that did not have any negative impact on the rate of voluntary academisation. While I recognise that the sector welcomed the trust capacity fund, the truth is that most multi-academy trusts that expanded in recent years did so without accessing the limited fund, including those that applied to the fund but were unsuccessful.

The current financial health of schools and academies suggests that the cost of conversion, where there is a strong case to do so, is likely to be affordable for them. The latest published figures show that the vast majority of academy trusts and local authority maintained schools are in cumulative surplus or breaking even. We do, however, keep this under review.

Let me also make it clear that, where necessary, and in cases of the most serious concern, the Government will continue to intervene and transfer schools to new management, and we will continue to provide support and funding for trusts that take on those schools eligible for intervention.

For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is nice to hear from the Minister that, following our decision to increase funding per pupil by 11% in real terms over the last Parliament, most trusts are in surplus or breaking even. None the less, I hope that Ministers will reconsider this matter. There has been something of a change in tone in recent weeks from the Government, particularly regarding academisation, which they say is now going to happen normally in certain cases, so I hope that Ministers will rethink some of their decisions about funding to enable that to happen, and to enable the best trusts to grow, to become stronger and to do even more to turn around our struggling schools. However, on this occasion, we will withdraw the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 18

School Trust CEO Programme

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make provision for the delivery of a programme of development for Chief Executive Officers of large multi-academy trusts (‘the School Trust CEO Programme’).

(2) The School Trust CEO Programme shall be provided by—

(a) the National Institute of Teaching; or

(b) a different provider nominated by the Secretary of State.

(3) The purposes of the School Trust CEO Programme shall include, but not be limited to—

(a) building the next generation of CEOs and system architects;

(b) providing the knowledge, insight and practice to ensure CEOs can run successful, sustainable, thriving trusts that develop as anchor institutions in their communities;

(c) building a network of CEOs to improve practice in academy trusts and shape the system; and

(d) nurturing the talents of CEOs to lead and grow large multi-academy trusts, especially in areas where such trusts are most needed.

(4) The Secretary of State must provide the School Trust CEO Programme with such funding and resources as are required for the carrying out of its duties.”—(Neil O’Brien.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide a School Trust CEO Programme.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 18 essentially raises the same issues as new clauses 17 and 19, but for a different programme—in this case, the trust leadership programme, which helps teachers and heads move up to running a trust and helps to create a self-improving system. A huge amount of work has gone into getting it right in recent years. It has been designed by the profession. It really has had a lot of work put into it, and it is a product of school leaders, not just the Government.

My understanding is that the programme will end after the current cohort completes it, and that there is no plan for another cohort. After all the work that has gone into the programme, that seems a real shame. The new clause would require Ministers to commit to the programme for further intakes and to put it on a permanent basis. I hope that Ministers will make that commitment, and that we can get good news from them today about the continuation of this really important programme.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Government are committed to supporting the development of leaders at all levels. As such, we have announced a review of national professional qualifications, which are evidence-based qualifications available to leaders at all levels. The review will include consideration of the training needs of those leading several schools, including large multi-academy trusts. However, committing to a specific service or provider in the Bill would contravene civil service governance procedures and public procurement legislation respectively, so we will not put in place a legal obligation to provide training or commit funding for the development of the chief executive officers of large multi-academy trusts. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.

[Neil O’Brien]

The new clause makes it clear that there would be a choice about who would provide the scheme. We heard from the Minister that there is a review of national professional qualifications going on. I will be happy to take an intervention if she is happy to tell us a date by which we will find out the results of that review. I do not know when school leaders who are currently benefiting from, or hoping to benefit from, this very important programme, designed by the sector, will find out from Ministers what its future will be. It sounds like Ministers are saying that it will not be until the review is completed, so I now have a question about when that will be and when we will have a definitive answer one way or the other. I wonder whether the Minister will consider writing to me to tell us roughly when the review will be complete. She is sort of nodding, but I am not going to probe the point.

We will withdraw the new clause for now, but this is a wonderful scheme and a crucial part of the self-improving system, and I hope that, whatever happens at the end of the review, something along these lines will be maintained. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 20

Approved free schools and university training colleges in pre-opening

“The Secretary of State must make provision for the opening of all free schools and university training colleges whose applications were approved prior to October 2024.”—(Neil O’Brien.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to proceed with the opening of free schools whose opening was paused in October 2024.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move That the clause be read a Second time.

The new clause presses Ministers to un-pause the final free schools. In October Ministers “paused” plans to open 44 new state schools, including three sixth-form colleges backed by Eton and, more importantly, by the brilliant Star Trust in Dudley, Middlesbrough and Oldham. Many of the proposals have had years of work put into them, and they are the passion projects of huge numbers of teachers and school leaders. They have the potential to do tremendous good in communities across the country, including some deprived communities. The new clause encourages the Government to end the damaging uncertainty for those schools, which have now been in limbo for a long time.

Free schools generally have fantastic progress scores, which are a quarter of a grade higher across all grades than would be expected given their intakes. That is exceptional across an entire type of school—an amazing result. When we look at Progress 8 scores in this country, free schools dominate the top of the league table. That is an amazing achievement from these passion projects—these labours of love—that have been created by teachers to help communities. We hope that Ministers will unblock the proposals soon, and end the uncertainty, so will the Minister give the Committee some sense of when these schools can expect a decision?

[Stephen Morgan]

I understand the hon. Member’s desire to ensure that approved free school projects, including two university technical college projects, open as planned, and I acknowledge the work that trusts and local authorities undertake to support free school projects to open. However, accepting the new clause would commit the Secretary of State to opening all projects in the current pipeline, regardless of whether they are still needed or represent value for money.

A range of factors can create barriers to a new school opening successfully, including insufficient pupil numbers to fill the school, or not being able to find a suitable site. That is why the Government have established practice of reviewing free school projects on an ongoing basis. As a result, over the lifetime of the programme, nearly 150 projects have been withdrawn by their sponsor trusts or cancelled by the Department.

The review that this Government announced in October 2024 has a strong focus on the need for places, and will ensure that we only open viable schools that offer value for taxpayers’ money. It would be wrong to spend funding on new schools that cannot be financially viable while existing schools urgently need that funding to improve the condition of their buildings. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am disappointed to hear that from the Minister, and we are also disappointed not to hear any date for when the schools, which all those people—people with an incredible track record in our deprived communities—have worked so hard to bring into existence, will open. Will he commit to write to us to say when those people can expect a decision? The uncertainty, which is so damaging, has been going on for so long. At the moment it is without end, and no one knows when they will get an answer from the Government. I wonder whether the Minister write to us—or, more to the point, to those people—to say when they can at least expect an answer one way or the other.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 21

School attendance: general duties on local authorities

“In Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Act 1996 (school attendance), after section 443 insert—

‘School attendance: registered pupils, offences etc

443A School attendance: general duties on local authorities in England

(1) A local authority in England must exercise their functions with a view to—

(a) promoting regular attendance by registered pupils at schools in the local authority’s area, and

(b) reducing the number and duration of absences of registered pupils from schools in that area.

(2) In exercising their functions, a local authority in England must have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in relation to school attendance.’”—(Neil O’Brien.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 22—School attendance policies—

“In Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Act 1996 (school attendance), after section 443 insert—

‘443A School attendance policies

(1) The proprietor of a school in England must ensure—

(a) that policies designed to promote regular attendance by registered pupils are pursued at the school, and

(b) that those policies are set out in a written document (an “attendance policy”).

(2) An attendance policy must in particular include details of—

(a) the practical procedures to be followed at the school in relation to attendance,

(b) the measures in place at the school to promote regular attendance by its registered pupils,

(c) the responsibilities of particular members of staff in relation to attendance,

(d) the action to be taken by staff if a registered pupil fails to attend the school regularly, and

(e) if relevant, the school’s strategy for addressing any specific concerns identified in relation to attendance.

(3) The proprietor must ensure—

(a) that the attendance policy and its contents are generally made known within the school and to parents of registered pupils at the school, and

(b) that steps are taken at least once in every school year to bring the attendance policy to the attention of all those parents and pupils and all persons who work at the school (whether or not for payment).

(4) In complying with the duties under this section, the proprietor must have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in relation to school attendance.’”

New clause 23—Penalty notices: regulations—

“In section 444B of the Education Act 1996 (penalty notices: attendance), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under subsection (1) may make provision in relation to England—

(a) as to the circumstances in which authorised officers must consider giving a penalty notice;

(b) for or in connection with co-ordination arrangements between local authorities and neighbouring local authorities (where appropriate), the police and authorised officers.’”

New clause 24—Academies: regulations as to granting a leave of absence—

“(1) Section 551 of the Education Act 1996 (regulations as to duration of school day etc) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for ‘to which this section applies’ substitute ‘mentioned in subsection (2)’.

(3) In subsection (2), omit ‘to which this section applies’.

(4) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) Regulations may also make provision with respect to the granting of leave of absence from any schools which are Academies not already falling within subsection (2)(c).’”

[Neil O’Brien]

This series of new clauses on attendance is intended, as with other amendments on discipline, to add to the Bill content on some of the biggest issues that are facing our schools, and which our teachers consistently rate as among the most important issues facing the school system. Although there has been recovery since the nadir of the post-pandemic period, as I look at attendance figures every week I worry that we are topping out at a level that is below pre-pandemic norms. For the current academic year we are at 18.7% persistent absence, compared with 10.9% pre-pandemic. That is a huge increase. When debating proposals in Westminster Hall from people who wanted to make it easier to take children out of schools, we and Ministers strongly agreed about the powerful negative impact that can have. Even small changes in attendance can have unbelievably large effects on overall achievement.

I will not labour the new clauses, because I am conscious of the time we have today and the need for many Members to get in. They were tabled to emphasise how important this issue is. I am sure Ministers agree; we are really just encouraging them to try to do more. In the most recent data, unauthorised absence is slightly up on last year. I am left with a feeling that something big is needed on this front. The new clauses are really just a way of encouraging Ministers to push hard on this vital issue.

[Stephen Morgan]

New clauses 21 and 22 seek to place new duties on local authorities and schools with regard to school attendance. Absence from school is one of the biggest barriers to success for children and young people, and has soared over recent years. We inherited a legacy of record levels of poor attendance, which impacts the life chances of all our young people, particularly the most disadvantaged. We are determined to work with the sector to tackle that legacy. That includes working with schools, which are uniquely placed to address the issue, and local authorities, which play a key role in supporting pupils whose absence is more entrenched and who face out-of-school barriers to attendance.

We naturally want to see consistency in this area, and to ensure that parents clearly understand how they will be supported if their child is having difficulties. However, we do not need the new clauses to do that. Both schools and local authorities are already subject to the statutory guidance on attendance introduced last summer. Since then, we have been supporting schools through a network of attendance hubs and our recently released attendance toolkit, and local authorities through our team of attendance advisers. Both have made significant progress in improving the support that they offer to children on attendance.

The challenge is to build on that progress, working in partnership. We will continue to ensure that teachers and staff are equipped to make school the best place to be for every child, by delivering free breakfast clubs in every primary school so that every child is on time and ready to learn, by delivering better mental health support through access to professionals, and by improving inclusivity in mainstream schools. We will support local authorities through the £263 million in new funding that we have already announced in the new children’s social care prevention grant, so that families can get the support they need, when they need it.

Schools and local authorities understand their responsibilities to promote school attendance, and we will provide them with the tools that they need to fulfil those responsibilities. The new clauses are not necessary for us to do that. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the shadow Minister not to press them.

New clause 23 relates to the circumstances in which a fixed penalty notice for school absence may be issued. The right approach to tackling school absence is one of support first. One of the most important things that parents do for their children’s learning, wellbeing and life chances is ensuring that they go to school every day, and that they are well enough to do so. We want to support the system and support parents to provide help where needed to overcome attendance problems. However, there are cases where support has been provided and not engaged with, and cases where support would not be appropriate. In such cases, there is a range of legal interventions available to ensure that children are not deprived of their right to an education.

It is important that the system treats families equally and that there is consistency across the country in how fixed penalty notices are considered, but the new clause is not needed to achieve that. The previous Government introduced a national threshold for considering when a fixed penalty notice should be issued, and an expectation that support should be offered first in cases other than term-time holidays. This Government have continued that policy. On the basis that neither this Government nor the previous one considered the new clause to be necessary, I ask hon. Members not to press it.

Finally, I turn to new clause 24. I appreciate hon. Members’ concern on this matter, and their desire for academies to follow rules on granting leave of absence. One of the many ways in which schools encourage regular attendance is by making it clear to parents—

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I want to concentrate today on our new clause 36, which would ban phones from our schools. The new clause would also write into law some of the content of the very good private Member’s Bill drafted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), because this does not need to be a party political issue.

When I was on the Science and Technology Committee back in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Back then, the evidence was already very concerning, but by now every alarm bell should be ringing. Over the last decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world, over the exact same period that smartphones and social media have become dominant in children’s lives. The growth in mental health problems is focused almost entirely on young people, not older people. Children now get smartphones at a very early age. As the Education Committee pointed out in a good report last year, one in five of the UK’s three and four-year-olds now has their own smartphone. By the end of primary school, four out of five kids have a smartphone.

There are many different ways in which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. They displace time in the real world with friends. US data, for example, shows that prior to 2012 children spent over two hours a day with friends, but that had halved by 2019. The proportion of children feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world. But smartphones are not just a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Children are tired in school, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip feed users dopamine.

At a recent school meeting that I organised in my constituency, I heard from local doctors about how excessive screen time is damaging eyesight and giving young kids the kind of back problems that one might expect from someone in late middle age. Eight out of 10 children are exposed to violent porn before the age of 18, many at a really young age. The average age at which kids see porn is now 13. The shift to a smartphone-based childhood is also leading children to be exposed to graphic violence, sextortion and self-harm encouragement, and is doing terrible things to girls’ self-image. According to the Office for National Statistics, one in five children aged 10 to 15 says they have been bullied online, and 72% of that is happening during school time.

As well as being bad in their own right, these negative effects come together to damage education. Although a ban of phones in schools cannot fix everything, it is a vital first step and can make a big difference in itself. I spoke to one headteacher who said that when they went from a policy of phones not being out to a full, “start of the day to end of the day” ban, with phones being handed in, the number of detentions they had to hand out fell by 40%, and teacher recruitment and retention improved, too.

[Chris Vince]

I thank the shadow Minister for giving way; he should take this as a constructive intervention. As a former teacher, I know some of the challenges of mobile phones—the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), will remember when hers went off during my speech in a debate on financial education. Will the shadow Minister also consider those groups who may require a mobile phone—I have perhaps given him a hint as to what I was going to mention—in particular young carers, who obviously need contact with family and those cared for?

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Member has brilliantly anticipated a point I was going to make, and if he looks at the text of the amendment he will see it is carefully drafted exactly to allow carve-outs for those who need them, for example as health devices, so I hope he is reassured on that point.

Attempts by the tech industry to lobby, to muddy the water, to run interference and to sow confusion are unconvincing. The problems hitting our children all over the world are not just a coincidence; there is more and more evidence for a causal link. For example, Sapien Labs asked questions about adults’ mental health and combined them into a mental health quotient score. They asked the same people when they first got a smartphone and the results were stark: the earlier someone gets a phone, the worse their mental health, particularly for girls. As with smoking, a powerful social gradient is also developing with smartphones and social media. That is going to widen gaps in school achievement unless something decisive is done.

Sadly, many people still do not know about the risks from smartphones but a growing number of parents do know and are worried about the problems with smartphones and social media, but we face a collective action problem: we worry that our kids will miss out if they are the only ones without them, and that is the problem that needs solving and Government need to be part of that. Across this country there has been an explosion of parent-powered campaign groups aiming to fight back including Smartphone Free Childhood, Safe Screens, Delay Smartphones and the new “Rage Against the Screen” campaign. Over the last year they have gained hundreds of thousands of members and together with the shadow Secretary of State and the Leader of the Opposition we met some of them this morning and I pay tribute to them for their work.

[Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)]

When I visit schools across my constituency, I find that many have instituted policies banning mobile phones, or indeed are consulting on doing so. Sometimes there is a small degree of pushback from pupils, and sometimes indeed from parents, but does my hon. Friend agree that if the Government take up this amendment, it will make it clearer and easier for schools to ban these phones and produce a safe and nurturing environment for our pupils in school, and it would be easier to take this forward?

[Neil O’Brien]

My hon. Friend is completely correct, and I was going to come on to that very point.

The Children’s Commissioner has said,

“I honestly think that we will look back in 20 years’ time and be absolutely horrified by what we allowed our children to be exposed to”,

and she is right. the very first thing Government could do is implement a proper ban on phones in our schools. Parentkind recently said to me, “Effectively, we are allowing our kids to be fed digital drugs and we are even allowing the dealers into the schools.” That has to change.

The last Government issued guidance; it was a good start, but it is not enough and is not working. While 90% of schools say they have some sort of policy or some sort of ban, a survey by Policy Exchange last year found that only one in 10 secondary schools has a full start-to-finish ban, the policy that works best. Lots of schools are still trying policies where kids have their phones on them but are not supposed to have them out. The effect is that the kids are distracted, the teachers have to stop lessons to tell them to put them away, and we get all of the issues about bullying and social media during break times and more.

As the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan), a Labour Member, pointed out the other day, guidance introduced by the previous Government is not working. We still have students using phones during break time and during lessons and this causes significant problems. I have had many teachers say to me, “This takes up so much time. It’s a huge distraction. It interferes with learning.” That is right and we are now in the strange situation where Labour MPs and the Conservative party agree that the guidance has turned out not to be enough, but the Labour Front Bench is insisting that it is; we are through the looking glass.

Why do we need a full ban, not just guidance? Our general approach is of course to give autonomy to schools but, first, the guidance is not working. The Department for Education’s own national behaviour survey published in April last year found that 35% of secondary school teachers reported mobile phones being used during lessons without permission, and the problem was more pronounced for older children: 46% of pupils in years 10 to 11 reported mobile phones being used when they should not have been during most or all lessons, and last month a survey by Parentkind found that nearly half of secondary school children say they see phones being used in class where they should not be every single day. So the idea that the guidance has done the trick and there is no longer a problem to solve is contradicted by the Department’s and the Government’s own data.

Secondly, we need to support schools and have their back. I know from speaking to teachers and school leaders that the pressures from a minority of parents to allow phones can be very severe. A minority of parents can be unreasonably determined that they must be able to contact their child directly at any minute of the day, but unfortunately that comes at a cost to everyone else’s education. As my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Dr Hudson) pointed out, a national ban would make things much simpler. We, the politicians, should take the flack and take the heat off schools.

Thirdly, a full and full-on ban is needed as the start of a wider resetting of social norms about children and smartphones and social media. We need a proper ban so that kids’ smartphones are put away for a whole day, including breaks. Breaks should be about physical activity, not just scrolling and scrolling. Schools should be the beachhead and the first place where we re-create the smartphone-free childhood that most of us got to enjoy—seven hours in which we de-normalise being on the phone all the time for young people.

A ban on smartphones in schools will, of course, not solve all the problems overnight, but it is a vital first step. When I was a Health Minister, I wanted us to develop an equivalent of the five bits of fruit and veg a day campaign, or public health campaigns such as “Don’t Die of Ignorance” or “Clunk Click Every Trip”, which older Members might remember. We need to do some big things to reset the culture. The heavy exposure of our kids to addictive-by-design products from the tech industry is the smoking of our generation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)]

I rise to speak in favour of new clause 35 and amendment 174, both in my name, as well as the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

The Corporate Parenting Forum was one of the more enjoyable committees I was on when I was a local councillor. I agree with the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen (Darren Paffey) that the forum has quite a cold name, given all the warm work that it does. It shows the dedication of social workers, the compassion of foster carers and adoptive parents, and the resilience and character of the children. However, anyone involved in that forum would also have seen that the hard work of those involved was often undermined by a system that held people back from caring to the best of their ability.

I am pleased that the Bill will make significant progress in that regard. However, there are areas where it could go further, and I intend to speak about a couple of them. One area of particular interest to me is the so-called care cliff edge. Those leaving the care system at 18 are forced to grow up so much faster than their peers. I have raised the issue on the Floor of the House before—in particular the age differential for universal credit. That impacts young care leavers far more than any other group.

The Bill seeks to lessen the care cliff edge. The “staying close” support requirements are of particular of interest to me, as is strengthening the support provided up to the age of 25. However, there is an anomaly on housing. I understand that the Government may accept that care leavers should not be regarded as becoming homeless intentionally, but my new clause 35 would go a step further and extend priority need status under the homelessness legislation to all care leavers up to the age of 25, regardless of all assessed vulnerabilities. The Bill provides that status to young care leavers aged 18 to 20, but that is out of line with the rest of the support available to young care leavers. Given all we know about the vulnerabilities of care leavers, which have been spoken about in the Chamber today, we should not put them in a position where they have to prove their vulnerability at that crucial crisis point.

Last Friday, I was at a homeless shelter in my constituency. I met a young carer who had spent eight months in a tent prior to arriving at the shelter. He told me the story of how that happened. He had been in supported accommodation before the age of 18, but that home shut down just as he reached the age of 18, so his transition plan was completely undermined in a moment. He bounced about from place to place for the following few years. He has now reached the crucial age of 25, but he has not received the support he needed in the last few years. New clause 35 could help rescue people like him in the future.

My other area of interest is kinship care. I must admit that I had not heard of kinship care until a few years ago, but I grew up in kinship care. I was the eldest of three boys. My mum had me at 19, and times got pretty tough as a teenager. Things boiled over, and eventually the relationship with my parents broke down. I left home and I never went back. As cocky as I was at 14 or 15 years old, I could not have lived on my own. but luckily my grandparents stepped up to take me on. My Nan and Pops, as I knew them, helped pick up the pieces and put me back on the straight and narrow. I went from being a boy who had started to fall behind in school and drink a bit down the park, to slowly taking my education more seriously and getting my act together.

If it had not been for my grandparents, I am pretty sure that I would not be sitting on these green Benches today. It was not easy for them, though: they were on a state pension, lived in a council house and did not have a lot to give, but what they did have to give was love, guidance and support. Crucially, that was accepted readily by me because they already had my trust and respect, and they had authority over me because they were my grandparents. That is the real power of keeping care within the family. There are bonds that are ready made, which is difficult to replicate in any other form of care, and they provide the foundation that children need to thrive. I acknowledge that the Bill is groundbreaking on kinship care, but we have so few opportunities to make change in this area, and I am determined to get it right the very first time.

My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham has tabled amendments on kinship care leave, kinship allowances, extending the pupil premium and prioritising school admission arrangements, all of which I have put my name to. I strongly hope that the Government can find a way to support those amendments. I have also tabled amendment 174, which would ensure that kinship families are actively engaged in shaping and forming the local authority policies that are outlined in the legislation, as families are in developing policies for children with special educational needs. The simple principle is: nothing about us without us. Kinship is a particularly complex form of care. The relationships have history. We need to appreciate the special nuances, and listen to kinship carers when developing policy. We must ensure that the authorities hear the voice of kinship families when designing the system to support them.

I wish that my grandparents had lived long enough to see me take my place on these Benches; they would have been very proud. I hope today that we can begin to say thank you to them, and to the thousands of kinship carers like them, by working towards the strongest possible rights and support.

[Neil O’Brien]

We have heard some superb speeches this afternoon. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), gave a brilliant and thoughtful speech, which ended with her talking about the welfare reforms that the Government will propose tomorrow. Our proposal for a ban on smartphones in schools is part of a general drive to undo the damage that a smartphone childhood is doing to young people’s mental health. We see that the driver of ballooning welfare claims, which the Government are really worried about, is young people and their mental health claims. If we want to be serious about prevention, a good place to start is with the amendment that we will vote on in a few moments. I am a glass-half-full kind of person. Although various Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), said that they would not be voting for the smartphone ban today, I could sense chinks of light in what they were saying; perhaps they were starting to come round to the idea.

My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) gave a great speech, in which he mentioned the challenge posed by the large number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the system, who now represent a third of all looked-after children in some local authorities. The hon. Member for Woking (Mr Forster) gave a fantastically powerful speech about safeguarding, in which he spoke about the tragic case of Sara Sharif. Although we will have to disagree about the policy, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) gave a good speech arguing for a smacking ban. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) raised important questions about unique identifiers, on which we all agree in principle, but getting it right will be crucial.

One of the most important speeches was the excellent contribution by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). She talked good sense and gave the Government good advice on part 2 of the Bill, and on schools. She also proposed sensible measures, which we support, to ensure that the flow of information around the system is all that it should be, and that the same kind of information that is provided to the Department is provided to those working on the frontline with children.

My hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) gave bleak but important testimony. Her idea of a covenant was important. There were other good speeches that I have not mentioned, but we ended on an excellent note with the contribution made by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). He made the case for kinship care powerfully; we are in agreement on that, and I hope that we will make progress on the issue as the Bill goes to the other place. It was a wonderful speech, and he was completely correct that his grandparents would have been very proud to see him in this House.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

The Bill does not set out any kind of clear plan or vision for our schools. It does not address the big challenges that need addressing. It is silent on discipline and behaviour—one of the biggest issues. It comes after the Government scrapped simple Ofsted judgments and will be followed by moves to dumb down the curriculum and lower standards further.

The Secretary of State has no positive vision. She has axed programmes for advanced maths, physics, Latin and computing because she thinks that they are elitist. She has axed behaviour hubs with no replacement, even though schools that went through the scheme were twice as likely to be good or outstanding. Yet, somehow, she is able to find £90 million for advertising. The Bill is the worst of all. We have tabled numerous amendments to it. It takes a wrecking ball to 40 years of cross-party reform of England’s schools. Those reforms worked. There is much more to do, but England has risen up the international league tables even as Labour-run Wales has slumped down.

Under successive Governments of all colours, England’s schools have been improved by the magic formula of freedom plus accountability. The Bill attacks both parts of that formula. On the one hand, it strips academy schools of freedoms over recruitment and curriculum and reimposes incredible levels of micromanagement, taking away academy freedoms now enjoyed by 82% of secondary schools. On the other hand, it strikes at accountability and parental choice, ending the automatic transfer of failing schools to new management, reversing the reforms of the late 1980s, which allowed good schools to expand without permission from their local authority—a reform that ushered in parental choice.

Let me unpack this. First, the Bill takes away academy schools’ freedoms over the curriculum. We have tabled amendments to that. As Sir Dan Moynihan, who leads the incredibly successful Harris schools, explained:

“We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects… why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 71, Q154.]

Likewise, Luke Sparkes from Dixons argued:

“we…need the ability to enact the curriculum in a responsive and flexible way at a local level…there needs to be a consistency without stifling innovation.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 79, Q167.]

Katharine Birbalsingh, the head of Michaela school, which has been top in the country three years in a row, wrote to the Secretary of State:

“Do you have any idea of the work required from teachers and school leaders to change their curriculum? You will force heads to divert precious resources from helping struggling families to fulfil a bureaucratic whim coming from Whitehall. Why are you changing things? What is the problem you are trying to solve?”

[Graham Stuart]

Like me, my hon. Friend finds these proposals tragic because of the removal of the curriculum freedoms that have allowed schools such as Michaela and Petchey and others all over the country to tailor their curriculum specifically to reach disadvantaged pupils so that they can engage better with their learning and have an achievement that previously they did not have. That door is being closed. I hope that Government Members reflect on this and seek a change of policy, if not in this House, then at least in the House of Lords.

[Neil O’Brien]

My right hon. Friend is completely correct. Some Government Members have reflected on this: the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum was of particular concern to her, and she is right. Ministers have never explained what they are trying to solve with this change, but the unions like it, so into the Bill it goes.

We have tabled further amendments on qualified teacher status. The Government are getting rid of academy freedoms over recruitment and the freedom to employ non-QTS teachers. Sir Martyn Oliver from Ofsted gave us a good example of how these freedoms are used. He said:

“In the past, I have brought in professional sportspeople to teach alongside PE teachers, and they have run sessions. Because I was in Wakefield, it was rugby league: I had rugby league professionals working with about a quarter of the schools in Wakefield at one point..”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 49, Q108.]

Brilliant. The Government’s own impact assessment to the Bill says of this change:

“some schools may struggle to find the teachers that they need.”

Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Association of Headteachers gave a good example of how this freedom is currently used. She said that she urgently needed an early years lead, and was able to take on someone who had run an outstanding nursery, even though they did not have QTS and nor did they plan to get it. But in future, she would not be able to do that. Former headteacher David Thomas told us in Committee that this freedom allows them to recruit people who may be at the end of their career, who have a huge amount of experience that they want to give back to the community. They do not want to go through the bureaucracy, and if we put up barriers, they will not end up in the state sector.

Ministers have not produced a single shred of evidence that teachers without QTS are of lower quality, or for why they cannot be a good supplement to QTS teachers. Ministers have never explained why they, sitting in Whitehall, think that they are in a better position to judge who to employ than headteachers on the frontline. Ministers claim that is vital, but a footnote at the bottom of page 24 of the impact assessment reveals it would, in fact, not be applied to lots of different types of schools, including 14 to 19 academies, 16 to 19 academies, university technical colleges, studio schools, further education colleges and non-maintained school early years settings. It is supposedly vital but is not being applied to loads of different types of school. Yet Ministers are imposing it on loads of other schools. As the former head of Ofsted pointed out this week, taking that flexibility out of the system feels like a retrograde step, and she is right.

Under the Bill, Whitehall micromanagement is back, too. Clause 44 allows the Secretary of State to direct academy schools to do pretty much anything. The Confederation of School Trusts is really worried about that and has suggested a way to bring such unlimited power under some limits. They say:

“We do have concerns about the power to direct…It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with Government to restrict it to create some greater limits. Those limits should be around statutory duties…statutory guidance, the provisions in the funding agreement”.––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 81, Q169.]

Yet Ministers voted down our amendment to put that suggestion from schools into effect.

Likewise, as we discovered in Committee, clause 34(5)(2) will require academy schools to get permission from the Secretary of State to make any change to the buildings they occupy. That includes any change to

“(ii) either part of the building, or

(iii) permanent outdoor structure”.

Literally, if an academy school wants to build a bike shed, it will have to go to the Secretary of State. It was clear in Committee that Ministers had not even realised that that would apply to academy schools. Those are just two of the many, many centralising measures in the Bill.

While freedom is being taken away on the one hand, accountability on the other side of the ledger is being watered down too. The Government already got rid of single-word Ofsted judgments and replaced them with something much more complicated that does not seem to have left anybody very happy. Then, clause 45 ends the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden has said,

“The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 902.]

She also said,

“the DfE will find itself mired in the high court in judicial review. When we tried to transfer our first failing school to a Harris academy we spent two years in court, and children…don’t have that time to waste.”

She is so right.

Rob Tarn, the chief executive of the Northern Education Trust, has made the same point:

“If there’s no longer a known, blanket reality…There is a risk that, where it’s been determined a school needs to join a strong trust, it will take much longer and we will go back to the early days of academisation when people went to court.”

The Children’s Commissioner makes that point too. She says that she is

“deeply concerned that we are legislating against the things we know work in schools, and that we risk children spending longer in failing schools by slowing down the pace of school improvement.”

She is right.

The Confederation of School Trusts has said that the current system offers struggling schools “clarity” as they

“will join a trust, and that process can begin immediately”.

In contrast, they warn,

“We are not clear on how commissioning part-time support through the RISE arrangements makes that any easier.”

The former national schools commissioner, Sir David Carter, has warned that the

“arguments and legal actions that will arise if a school in Cumbria is told to join a trust while a school in Cornwall just gets arm’s length support will only add delay to delivering a fairer and better offer to children.”

Worse still is clause 51, which attacks school choice and the freedom to go to good schools. It was in 1987 that Mrs Thatcher announced that

“we will allow popular schools to take in as many children as space will permit. And this will stop local authorities from putting artificially low limits on entry to good schools.”

That agenda became known as local management of schools and of it the former Labour Minister Lord Adonis wrote,

“Local Management of Schools was an unalloyed and almost immediate success…school budgets under LMS were based largely on pupil numbers, so parental choice came to matter as never before.”

In contrast, the Government’s impact assessment of the Bill says:

“We want the local authority to have more influence over the PANs for schools in their area”.

It goes on to say:

“It could also limit the ability of popular schools to grow…If a school is required to lower their PAN, some pupils who would have otherwise been admitted will be unable to attend the school. This will negatively impact on parental preference”.

Michael Johnson, the leader of the very successful Chulmleigh trust, warns that that “could be disastrous for successful schools…The Government are not better placed than parents to decide which school a child attends.”

[Graham Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend, like me, reflect on the irony that the success from 2010 to 2024, which we on the Conservative Benches would naturally celebrate, was only possible because of the Labour visionaries who drove the academies programme forward, made changes, developed the argument, rolled the pitch and allowed us to lift our schools to much higher levels of performance and our children from deprived backgrounds to much better results. Labour Members were the creators of that, and now this Government are disowning it.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is tragic. It is not us criticising the Bill; it is the professionals—the people who have given their lives to education. I will give another example. Gareth Stevens, leader of Inspiration Trust, another high-performing trust, gives the example of his local council wanting to halve places at an outstanding school to prop up other schools. He says that

“the idea that we could have the rug pulled out from under us and the number of places in our high performing school cut is the most worrying thing…It will mean fewer places at high performing good or outstanding schools”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to new clause 6 tabled by children’s food champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and to amendments 212 to 220 in my name. I also put on record my support for new clause 1 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), new clause 7 tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and new clause 49 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). It will come as no surprise that I am also a fan of new clause 34 because, thanks to the last Government, over 4 million children are in poverty, and I will always support anything that makes their little lives and that of their families more bearable.

New clause 6 would introduce a much-needed national monitoring system for school food. Of course, school food standards already exist, but not all schools are meeting them. There is far too much variance. There are some brilliant examples of heart-healthy, nutritious meals that fuel children for the rest of the school day. Then, there are examples where unhealthy fizzy drinks and fried food are the norm. Some 60% of secondary schools have been found not to follow the school standards at all. A study from Impact on Urban Health shows significant differences between what is mandated by the school standards and what is on menus and what ends up on plates. There is far too much free rein. There is no mechanism for school food standards to be checked against what pupils are being served. The new clause would end the postcode lottery of school food so that standards no longer just exist on paper but are on our children’s plates.

The amendments in my name all relate to strengthening school breakfast club provision. After years of pushing my School Breakfast Bill, no one was happier than me when the Labour Government legislated for school breakfasts. It is great to see that three of the pilots are in schools in my constituency. Some 2.7 million children live in food-insecure households. The previous Government’s national school breakfast programme is missing 86% of those children. Most of them will have arrived at school ready to learn, but with a gnawing hunger in their stomachs. Their day is marked with that persistent worry that comes with hunger—a worry that will permeate their entire school day.

Hunger has a significant impact on children’s learning, because hungry children do not learn, no matter how bright and determined they are and no matter how amazing or dedicated their teachers are. Numerous studies have shown the links between nutrition and cognitive development. Hungry children suffer developmental impairments, language delays and delayed motor skills, not to mention the psychological and emotional impact, which can range from withdrawn and depressive behaviours to irritable and aggressive ones.

I have always believed in the transformational power of education. It is certainly not standard for children from my background to end up in this place, so the power of a good education can never be overestimated. The food that fuels that ability to learn and develop should never be underestimated. These clubs will ensure that socioeconomic status is less of a deciding factor in good educational outcomes. My amendments would help realise the full potential of our breakfast clubs.

There is no provision in the Bill to monitor or measure the success of school breakfast provision. It is difficult to scrutinise the efficacy of any policy if there is never any analysis of it. The pupil premium, free school meals eligibility and the income deprivation affecting children index are good indicators of the very children who will need these clubs the most. Any policy should be measured by its impact on these groups, so that we know that those who are most in need are benefiting.

More worryingly, without proper data to prove the success of the policy, a future Government may decide to scrap it altogether. That is why amendment 212 is so important. Not all staff are nutritional experts, and some will have never delivered school breakfast provision before, so it is right that they have the right advice on hand and why a more mixed model and flexible approach is needed from the Government. Amendments 213 and 216 to 218 would achieve that.

The flexibility shown in the models adopted by Magic Breakfast has resulted in a take-up that is 375% higher than in non-Magic Breakfast schools. Yet the Bill requires only one model be delivered: the traditional breakfast club, held in a canteen for 30 minutes before the start of the school day. Many schools already use different models of breakfast clubs, including ones that suit particular schools, such as classroom breakfasts, grab-and-go takeaway models, nurture groups and late provision. A rigid model of delivery will have less success and schools that cannot fit that model will feel that they have to be exempt from delivery. Amendments 214 and 215 would ensure that if a school were to seek exemption from the Government’s school clubs, other models had been considered.

I know that the Minister knows that SEND schools often cater for primary and secondary pupils on the same site. That means that in those schools some children will be excluded from school breakfast clubs. I know from discussions with dedicated teachers and school staff in my constituency that they will not allow their pupils to be disadvantaged in that way, so it is likely they will use their already tight budgets to make sure older pupils also get that nutritious, healthy start to their school day.

Amendment 219 would apply only to approximately 100,000 pupils in England. That would be a modest 2.22% increase in the policy if all those children took up the offer—and we know that that is unlikely, because the children with complex needs do not always require the same food provision accessed by other pupils. For those who do require it, however, it is right that they should have the same nutritious start to their day as other children with whom they share a school site.

I am, of course, pleased that at long last there is legislation for school breakfasts. However, it is essential that we get that right. My amendments will do just that, and I know that the Minister will have carefully considered them. I look forward to her comments at the close of the debate.

[Neil O’Brien]

With the leave of the House, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon, as we did in Committee. I will pick out only a few of the contributions. We had important words from the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who pointed out how quickly the Bill had been prepared and pushed through. That is why we have so many amendments on Report and, to be honest, one reason that the Bill has run into such trouble.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) gave a great speech, drawing on his experience as the Chair of the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) gave an excellent speech, laying out why the provisions on home schooling are an excessive burden and go too far. We all agree that it is about making sure that children are not just “not in school”; however, the provisions really are overly burdensome. The hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and lots of Conservative colleagues pointed out the same thing.

I have to say that my jaw hit the floor when I first read the Bill and saw the provisions that treat the parents of children in special schools the same as people who are being investigated by social services. Those people are not criminals, they are not doing the wrong thing and sometimes they need to move to look after their vulnerable children. I hope the Government will think again in the other place.

[Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)]

I agree with the shadow Minister on the point about special schools. Additionally, in Committee in January, he raised the point about local authority consent for some children to be withdrawn from school, and how that should be extended from children who are subject to a child protection plan to children who are regarded as a child in need. Why are the Opposition not pushing that to a vote today?

[Neil O’Brien]

We have a limited number of things that we can press to a vote, but I hope, as we go to the debate in the other place, that we are in complete agreement on the excessive nature of some of the requirements being made of home schoolers, who we must not treat as illegitimate just because they choose to educate their children in a certain way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) used his huge experience to take us on a rather bleak journey from the reforming agenda of the early Blair years to the regress that we are seeing now. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) explained why this was such a mistake and took us through the Bill in bleak detail.

I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), but I do agree with her on Andrew Tate, whom I regard as totally abhorrent. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Justice Secretary, is leading the charge to get the Tates deported to this country so that they can face justice here. I find their work utterly, utterly abhorrent.

My brilliant hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) contrasted the reforming rhetoric that we at least see in other Departments with the rather retro agenda in the Department for Education. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who did so much work in Committee, gave us another brilliant and witty speech. He talked about how Labour reformers had always been swimming against the tide, and I think that is right. He also talked about the free school breakfast numbers that the Government have used and the claim that they are going to save parents £450. This is a mysterious figure, because if we want to give £450 to every primary school child, that will cost north of £2 billion, but the Government are spending £33 million, so they are two orders of magnitude apart. Why will the Government not publish the workings behind this figure? I think the truth is that the source is the back of a spad’s fag packet, to be completely honest.

The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) gave a good speech, and the thing I absolutely agree with him about is the importance of teaching. It is one of the best and most noble things anyone can do with their life. All of us as MPs do school visits, and we might do an hour of highly energetic chat with people in year 6. We then realise the energy required to be a teacher and to keep that up all day, so I absolutely pay tribute to those who are doing this noble work.

One of the most interesting speeches this afternoon was the one from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). Various Labour Members said that things under the last Government were not nirvana, and that is right. Various people said that there were more things to fix, and that is right too. We absolutely agree with that. But the hon. Member said that things were so much better in Wales because they had avoided the Blair-era reforming agenda, they had avoided academies, they had got rid of league tables for a time, they were still using other methods such as cueing rather than phonics, and so on and so forth. But let us just have a look at the numbers to see what that has done.

The PISA tables show that, under the last Government, England went from 11th to ninth on science, 19th to ninth on reading and 21st to seventh on maths. That is a huge increase. In Wales, the best bit was on maths, where they went from 29th to 27th. They were flat at 28th on reading and collapsed from 21st to 29th on science. A pretty dismal record, really. I would encourage those who say that things are brilliant in Wales to read the searing report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is known for its mild-mannered work and cautious judgments. The report states:

“PISA scores declined by more in Wales than in most other countries in 2022, with scores declining by about 20 points (equivalent to about 20% of a standard deviation, which is a big decline). This brought scores in Wales to their lowest ever level, significantly below the average across OECD countries and significantly below those seen across the rest of the UK…Lower scores in Wales cannot be explained by higher levels of poverty. In PISA, disadvantaged children in England score about 30 points higher, on average, than disadvantaged children in Wales. This is a large gap…Even more remarkably, the performance of disadvantaged children in England is either above or similar to the average for all children in Wales.”

Disadvantaged children in England are doing better than all children in Wales, and the IFS also points out that the disadvantage gap is bigger in Wales. It concludes that the explanation for lower educational performance is not ethnicity or deprivation, and that it

“is much more likely to reflect longstanding differences in policy and approach, such as lower levels of external accountability and less use of data.”

That is the damning indictment of the IFS.

As Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things”. We have seen what this agenda does in Wales. It is a disaster, and those who are the most deprived are the ones who lose out the most. That is why this afternoon we are going to be pushing our amendments to protect academy freedoms, to protect the ability of good schools to grow and to protect parental choice. This Bill shifts power from parents to politicians, and we will always resist that. We will be moving to a vote now to stop this destructive agenda, which has failed in Wales and will fail in England too.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.