Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill
Wednesday 14th October 2020
(4 years, 2 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
Welcome to the Public Bill Committee for the Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill. Before we begin, I have a few announcements. You will all understand the need to respect social distancing guidance. If necessary, I will intervene to remind you. Note passing should be done electronically only. The Hansard reporters would be eternally grateful if Members emailed any electronic copies of their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room and online. No amendments have been tabled and I intend there to be a single debate on all three clauses.
Clause 1
Welfare of children: 16 to 19 Academies and further education
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 2 stand part.
Clause 3 stand part.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I look forward to serving under your chairship, Ms Cummins, and I am very grateful to every Member who has agreed to be part of this Committee. I appreciate people’s willingness to give up their time, especially given the important debates taking place in the Chamber at the minute.
While the Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill might not make the front pages, it is a very important piece of legislation. There is a flaw in the way young people are safeguarded in education: while every child is protected by safeguarding duties, they are not all protected in the same way. That is clearly wrong.
The Committee has the opportunity today to enact the sort of cross-party work that is sometimes needed in Parliament. A clear problem has been identified and a sensible solution provided. Together, we can work to correct a mistake and help to improve the education system by keeping young people safe and giving parents the peace of mind they deserve.
Although technical, the Bill is relatively simple. All providers of post-16 education have safeguarding requirements. Further education colleges, sixth forms and schools have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of every child at that institution. However, while 16-to-19 academies, special post-16 institutions and independent learning providers have safeguarding duties as a condition of funding, young people who attend those institutions are not protected in the same way that they would be at a school or further education college. That was clearly an unintentional oversight and it must therefore be amended.
The Bill has two substantive clauses and it will amend the Education Act 2002 and the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009. It will impose direct safeguarding duties upon 16-to-19 academies and also place an obligation upon the Secretary of State for Education to ensure that compliance with the safeguarding duties is a condition of funding for special post-16 institutions and independent learning providers.
As all providers have safeguarding responsibilities, there should be no extra cost for providers. Instead, the 100 16-to-19 academies and 1,000 independent providers brought into scope by the Bill will benefit from a simplified safeguarding system with greater alignment of duties. The Bill therefore works for education providers, as well as parents and young people.
I want to stress just how necessary the Bill is. It will only become more important as we see the roll-out of T-levels and continued academisation. No matter what our disagreements on how education should be delivered, we can all agree that every young person should be protected in the same way, no matter which organisation delivers the education. That is why it is so important that this anomaly is corrected. By law, providers have safeguarding responsibilities and the vast majority will follow best practice. I believe we need a guarantee of that in law. I hope the Committee will support me in closing the loophole to ensure that every young person is kept safe in education.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Ms Cummins, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham on promoting this private Member’s Bill.
The flaws in the way young people are safeguarded in education and the disparities in the system need to be addressed and corrected. It is right and absolutely necessary that apprenticeships training providers meet the minimum standards that already exist for schools, further education colleges and sixth form colleges. Every child and young person needs to be protected, and the Bill helps to do just that.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham for introducing the Bill, which is an important piece of legislation. We all feel strongly about the importance of apprenticeships and skills, and we recognise that 16 to 19-year-olds are at a delicate stage in their lives. Anyone who has been the parent of a child of 16 to 19 knows—most Members here are too young—that it is quite a challenge. [Laughter.] Joking aside, they are at a vulnerable point in their lives, moving between childhood and adulthood. Also, in many areas, they are moving from the school education space to the workspace, and it is important to have clarity on what their rights are in relation to safeguarding.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I want to place on the record my congratulations to the hon. Member for City of Durham on securing this important piece of legislation. Having worked in the sector with secondary school kids and as a head of year in pastoral care, and regularly worrying in some cases about what they were going on to, I want to make sure that Conservative Members add our congratulations to the hon. Lady on this important Bill. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way.
Mr Perkins
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman took the opportunity to say that. Having read the Hansard record of the first debate, I know how many people spoke in it and that the intentions behind the Bill were widely supported across the House.
When young people are in the space that encompasses both their education and their employment, it is important that there is clarity about what the responsibilities are. In the area of T-levels—an educational environment, but with very much a work focus—it is important that everyone understands and that independent learning providers realise that the expectations of them are exactly the same as they are for further education providers.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I think this is a wonderful Bill. For those of us who have been touched by and blessed with close family members who are on the autistic spectrum, the underlying challenges and social issues that young people face when they go through the school system are still there at 16 to 19. We have to safeguard the interests of children who are special and unique, but who have challenges in their lives. Training has to be adapted, whether with regard to a T-level or a more academic subject. Whatever training is provided, we need to ensure we have a system that safeguards those unique qualities to make sure that everybody can succeed. That is why I think this Bill is so worthwhile, and from the bottom of my heart I congratulate the hon. Member for City of Durham.
Mr Perkins
I could not agree more. It is important that children and young people with autism and the particular vulnerabilities that they face are not left out of our discussions. It is absolutely right that they need to be safeguarded. That is one reason that there is such support for the Bill.
While this is a technical change, it is of real importance, because specifying and putting front and centre that safeguarding duty is absolutely crucial. We all know that ignorance of the law is not a defence in law, but making sure that fewer employers are ignorant is one of our responsibilities in this place. I think this Bill will achieve that. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham on introducing the Bill and I am glad that there seems to be such widespread support for it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your first chairmanship, Ms Cummins, and I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the hon. Member for City of Durham on introducing the Bill and progressing it to this stage. I am pleased to work with her on this important issue, and in a collaborative, cross-party way, because, as she rightly points out, we are often at our best in this House when doing so. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions.
It was clear on Second Reading that the Bill had cross-party support, and I am pleased that the same is the case at this stage. I feel confident in recommending the Bill’s passage to its remaining stages and I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chesterfield, for his comments. We take seriously our duty to protect young people at each critical stage of their development.
Jonathan Gullis
This is a really good opportunity to use the Bill as a way to look at independent training providers. While there are many fine examples, there are also too many duds out there, to be quite frank. I really hope that we can use this opportunity to review the quality of independent training providers, especially for those children who have special educational needs and disabilities.
Gillian Keegan
A lot of work has been done on the quality, which my hon. Friend rightly says varies.
Often when putting things in legislation, it is worthwhile taking a moment to think about the impact it has on people. I was struck by the intervention made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North on behalf of those with autism. We know that a lot of children at this age struggle to get into employment, and it is our duty to give all the support that we can at that fragile and vulnerable stage, as he said. Actually understanding the difference we can make in this place in highlighting those issues is also important. I know that all hon. Members agree that the safety and welfare of children are of the utmost importance. The Government take these issues extremely seriously, which is why we are pleased to support the Bill.
The post-16 education sector is rich and diverse. It offers A-levels, T-levels, apprenticeships, traineeships and so much more, but that also means that it is a complex landscape with a range of academic, vocational and technical training providers, which sometimes vary in quality. Providers of post-16 education and training that are funded by the Education and Skills Funding Agency already have safeguarding requirements placed on them, but the nature of those requirements varies. Certain providers have statutory safeguarding duties placed on them, and others have safeguarding requirements placed on them as a result of conditions of funding, as the hon. Member for City of Durham laid out. Those are all contractual obligations, and all providers are subject to inspection by Ofsted, which ensures the quality.
The Bill is designed to streamline and simplify the system by making it easier for providers to understand what safeguarding actions they need to take, and it will bring clarity to students, apprentices and their parents on the protections in place to keep children safe at college and at work.
This is a simple Bill. Clause 1 makes the Secretary of State for Education directly accountable for ensuring that the terms of funding provided to post-16 education and training providers include safeguarding duties. It extends safeguarding duties that already apply to schools and colleges to 16-to-19 academies, special post-16 institutions and independent training providers that provide further education. In other words, all providers that are directly funded by the Government for the provision of further education will have a legal duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children as a condition of funding.
The clause also means that those providers must have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State for Education, such as “Keeping Children Safe in Education”. That provides information on how to identify abuse and neglect and what to do when there are concerns that a child has been, or is being, harmed. We agree that having one set of guidance covering all providers will simplify safeguarding and make it far clearer and more transparent.
James Daly
If I may come back to the definition of welfare and safeguarding, one thing about the welfare of children in education is how their needs are protected by the education provider. An autistic child may need one-on-one support or a certain environment that enables them to learn and to address their challenges. May I confirm that the welfare of the child in the educational setting and the requirement that that puts on providers to seek the best way to ensure that such children can succeed are encompassed in the spirit, if not the wording, of the Bill?
Gillian Keegan
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The “Keeping Children Safe in Education” guidance sets out the type of consideration that providers need to show and goes into a great deal of information about special educational needs and disability. The Bill extends safeguarding duties that already apply to schools and colleges, including special schools and colleges of special educational needs, to new settings. The welfare and needs of the child are at the centre of that.
I am sure that all hon. Members wish to join me in thanking the providers of post-16 education up and down the country who work every day to protect our children. It is vital that parents and students have confidence that their education provider is doing all that they can, and should, to provide a safe, supportive learning environment that protects those students from harm. Providers must clearly understand what is expected of them, and having all the information in one place enables providers to get the help that they need quickly. That is why I strongly believe that the Bill will deliver consistency and simplicity to our diverse further education sector.
I thank all Members present today for their openness and constructive comments. I am confident from our discussions that we have the right foundations on which to progress the Bill. I am grateful to all Members present for taking the time to attend and contribute to this important debate. I pass on my gratitude in particular to the hon. Member for City of Durham for bringing this important issue to light and ensuring that the Bill will be enacted. I thank her very much for her support, and I commend the Bill to the Committee.
Mary Kelly Foy
I thank everyone for serving on the Committee, especially given the added challenges of covid. With that in mind, I thank the Clerks, the Chair and every civil servant who has assisted in the preparation of the Bill and the delivery of the Committee stage. The return to physical proceedings has caused incredible damage to the staff who keep this place running, and I am genuinely grateful for everything that they do. I am sure that my colleagues share that sentiment.
Hon. Members
Hear, hear!
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 and 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill
Friday 12th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 1, page 3, line 3, leave out from “force” to end of subsection and insert “on 1 October 2021”.
This amendment will incorporate into the Bill the guidance for policy makers issued in August 2010 that there should be two common commencement dates each year, one of which is 1st October, for the introduction of changes to regulations affecting businesses.
Amendment 1 is a short amendment, supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and for Shipley (Philip Davies), but it has a deeper purpose, which is set out in the explanatory statement. It means that the regulations under the Bill would come into effect on 1 October 2021.
In thinking about all this, it occurred to me that over the years we have lost sight of an important deregulatory policy of the Government, introduced, I think, in 2010: that, to reduce the burdens on business, regulations passed by this House should only be implemented on two implementation dates each year. One was, I think, 1 April and the other was 1 October. The idea behind that was that people in business should not have to keep an eye on when another regulation was going to be implemented or when those regulations that had been passed would be commenced. I thought it would be useful to try to tease out from the Government what their thinking is.
This Bill, in particular, contains an enormous amount of regulatory burden affecting the providers of important apprenticeships and training for youngsters. I do not disagree with the substance or the idea of what it is doing, but we must not underestimate the fact that what we are talking about is creating an additional burden. It would be better, in my view, to say that instead of its coming into force at the end of two months beginning on the day on which it is passed, it should come into force on 1 October and we could then re-adopt the practice that was begun, that there should only be two days each year when we commence these regulations.
That is quite a short point, and it will not be made any stronger by repetition, but I hope it will be taken seriously by the Government. I imagine the Minister, having received notice of this amendment, will be able to give me a definitive response from the deregulation unit, or whatever the equivalent body now is that deals with these matters on behalf of the Government and tries to ensure that this is a business-friendly Government.
Years ago, I was on a deregulation taskforce that made many different regulations. I wish this suggestion had been one of the ones that came out of our particular taskforce. It was not, but I think it was a sensible suggestion, so I am trying to use the vehicle of a Friday private Member’s Bill day and the opportunity of the Report stage of this Bill to ventilate the matter and try to engage the Government in a dialogue about it.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [V]
I will be speaking against the amendment, and I will keep my remarks brief out of consideration for my colleagues whose Bills follow my own.
The intervention by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) is not, in my opinion, needed for several reasons. First, the guidance he refers to in the amendment was intended to give time for businesses to prepare for costs associated with changes in legislation or for any significant changes in their practices. As this Bill does not result in any increased costs for education providers or any significant burden for business, I would argue that this extra time is not needed.
Secondly, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that many designated safeguarding leads in further education are aware of the potential change in legislation, so again, I do not believe that further time is needed for providers to prepare for the change in law. Finally, as the Bill relates to education and aims at simplifying the safeguarding process for providers of post-16 education, it would make more sense for this legislation to come into effect for the start of the academic year in September. In fact, a change in legislation mid-term would arguably be more burdensome to business.
Rachel Hopkins (Luton South) (Lab) [V]
I wish to speak against the amendment that has been proposed. I believe I have been listed to speak in the Third Reading part of the debate on this Bill, so I am happy to contribute my opposition to this amendment and be called in the second part of the debate as well.
Wes Streeting (Ilford North) (Lab)
I have really nothing further to add to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and to moving on, hopefully promptly, to Third Reading.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Gillian Keegan)
I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) for his interest in this Bill and for raising his concerns on behalf of businesses and training providers. However, I do believe the amendment he has put forward is unnecessary. This Bill does not place any new or additional burdens or costs on education and training providers. It is a technical change to put all Government-funded providers of post-16 education and training on the same statutory footing.
As I made clear in Committee, all children in post-16 education or training are currently protected by safeguarding arrangements. If a provider is already properly discharging its safeguarding responsibility, the change in this Bill will make no practical difference to it. It is not anticipated that this will add burdens or costs to businesses and training providers. As I am sure my hon. Friend is aware, safeguarding duties on providers can come from a variety of sources. This Bill simplifies a situation that is more complex than it needs to be.
The Bill, as currently drafted, will come into force two months after it is passed. Amendment 1 would add several months to that period, going beyond the start of the academic year, as the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) said. I do not think it is in the spirit of clarity and simplification that has characterised the cross-party support of this Bill, and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch to withdraw his amendment.
Sir Christopher Chope
Unfortunately, I do not seem to have achieved my purpose, which was to try to draw out a response from the Government the issue of having two separate days each year when regulations are implemented to reduce the burden on business. The promoter of the Bill, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), and the Minister have said in response, “Well, not me, guv”—this legislation does not impose any fresh burdens, and therefore the point I was making in my amendment and the remarks I made in addressing the amendment are really of no relevance. I think that is really the point that my hon. Friend the Minister is making. I shall have to explore other ways of developing the idea that we should reintroduce the practice that was first introduced in 2010 of having a maximum of two days each year when we introduce regulatory burdens on business, and hopefully many more days when we deregulate. I am grateful to those who have participated in this short debate for explaining that the Bill is not in the least burdensome and that everyone is absolutely hunky-dory about it so we should be content. In those circumstances, I seek leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Third Reading
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
While technical, this Bill is relatively simple. I am conscious that a number of hon. Members are keen to ensure that their Bills are also heard, so I will keep my remarks as brief as possible, especially as the contents have been well covered in previous stages.
Legal safeguarding duties do not apply to independent providers in the same way as they do for those educated at school or in sixth form or further education colleges. The Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill aims to ensure that all young people are protected by the same safeguarding duties in the law, irrespective of the education or training provider that they choose.
The Bill contains two substantive clauses. Clause 1 amends the Education Act 2002 to extend the existing safeguarding duties that apply to further education colleges, schools and sixth forms to post-16 academies. As more sixth forms convert to academies, the requirement for this change becomes more pressing. Clause 1 also brings independent learning providers and specialist post-16 institutions into scope by imposing direct responsibilities on the Secretary of State for Education, requiring them to include the safeguarding duties as a condition of any agreement with those institutions. The Bill would also compel providers to have regard to any guidance on safeguarding issued by the Secretary of State such as the document “Keeping children safe in education”.
Clause 2 will amend the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to ensure that apprenticeship providers, as well as those who assist with the training or education of T-level students that is funded under the Act, must follow those safeguarding duties, while having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. Again, the duty is on the Secretary of State to include those requirements in agreements, while the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children at the institution falls on the provider.
I introduced the Bill because in the City of Durham I am privileged to represent a constituency that contains a number of top-class further education providers in both academic and vocational subjects. There is the leading further education college, New College Durham, one of the first education providers to offer T-levels, as well as the excellent Houghall college, part of East Durham college, which I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris). We also have a number of brilliant sixth forms as well as a number of independent providers. I place on the record my gratitude to the staff, students and family members who have put so much effort into ensuring that there has been as little disruption as possible to education during the pandemic.
While I welcome the diversity training and education courses available to my constituents, I do not welcome the potential for variation in safeguarding requirements. As a parent, I know how important it is to be secure in the knowledge that children are kept safe in education. For many, further education is a new experience, full of different challenges for young people and their families. Between further education colleges, sixth-form academies and independent providers, there are a variety of options for how young people are educated, which can be confusing for parents. We could debate in the House all day how education should be provided, but I think we all agree that every child and young person, regardless of their background or education provider, should be subject to the same safeguarding requirements as their peers. By closing this loophole, we can help protect young people while giving parents the reassurance and peace of mind they deserve when it comes to their child’s education.
However, this Bill is about more than protecting young people and reassuring parents; it is also practical for education and training providers. Currently, the system for post-16 academies, independent providers and specialist institutions is somewhat complex and inconsistent. By extending legal safeguarding duties to cover all publicly funded providers of post-16 education, safeguarding requirements for institutions will be simplified, making the whole process easier for educators. The Bill will also benefit providers to which these duties already apply by ensuring that there is a level playing field when it comes to safeguarding requirements, meaning that schools, colleges and sixth forms will operate on the same terms as the independent sector.
This is a good, simple Bill aimed at addressing an anomaly in safeguarding legislation that we all recognise must be fixed, and it does so in a way that benefits providers, parents and young people. I hope that we can continue the fantastic cross-party work so far on the Bill, to help me close this anomaly in law.
Gillian Keegan
I thank the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for her work on this Bill, and I congratulate her on introducing it and steering it through the House. Safeguarding, and particularly protecting children from online harm, is a subject that we are passionate about, and I am privileged to lend my support, and the support of a Government, to the Bill.
Cross-party support and co-operation have characterised the passage of the Bill, which is testament to the hon. Lady and to the importance that the House places on safeguarding children. I am extremely grateful to all hon. Members who have taken time to contribute during debates at each stage of the Bill. I know that, in many cases, these interventions have been informed by personal experience or the experience of constituents or training providers and other educational institutions.
It is vital that, at this challenging and important time in their lives, children feel safe; it is vital that parents can trust education and training providers, however these are constituted, to keep the children in their care safe; and it is vital that providers are clear about their duties and responsibilities to these children. I put on the record my thanks to all those in the sector who have worked so hard to welcome students back so successfully this week.
Let me be clear: all children in post-16 education and training are currently protected by safeguarding arrangements, but the duties that determine these arrangements come from a wide variety of sources, depending on the nature of the education or training provider. The post-16 landscape is diverse, to meet our diverse education and training needs, but the safeguarding duty does not need to be different. It should be clear and it should be universal. The changes in the Bill are important, but they are technical. They should not lead to additional costs or burdens on education or training providers. A provider that is already fulfilling its safeguarding duty would not need to make any practical changes.
I also support the Bill’s intention that all providers should have regard to the statutory guidance, “Keeping children safe in education”. Having one set of guidance that covers all providers will simplify safeguarding, make it more transparent and help ensure that safeguarding requirements remain relevant and up to date. As a result of this Bill, “Keeping children safe in education” will need to be amended, and we have undertaken to consult openly and widely with the sector to ensure that the guidance will be appropriate and proportionate.
In closing, let me once again thank the hon. Member for City of Durham for bringing forward this important Bill, which the Government are pleased to support.
Wes Streeting
It is a pleasure to speak in support of this Bill on Third Reading. As the Minister will know from the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) in Committee, the Bill has the Opposition’s wholehearted support. Of course, there are very few responsibilities as important as safeguarding and protecting the welfare of children and young people. The Bill, as we have heard, moves to level the playing field for all providers of publicly funded post-16 education and training.
All that is left for me to do is wish the Minister a very happy birthday this weekend, and I will also say something about my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy). She has been a Member of Parliament for barely 15 months. Many Members serve in this House with distinction for decades without ever managing to put their mark on the statute book in the way that she has. Her constituents ought to be very proud of their MP for how she has diligently and consistently represented their concerns and interests in these most challenging times. The passage of this Bill will be a meaningful step towards ensuring that all children and young people, wherever they are studying, learning or training, are safe, and I think that is something of which she and the people of Durham can be immensely proud.
Sir Christopher Chope
May I, too, wish the Minister a most enjoyable, productive and lazy weekend, bearing in mind that Sunday is also Mother’s Day?
I support the Bill. Obviously, it is desirable that we should maintain the highest standards of looking after our children when they are in the care of others, as they are when they go on training courses, whatever institution that happens to be in. I am lucky to have in my constituency some really good providers of specialist training for apprentices, which is now so popular and effective. I have visited those organisations and met the youngsters who have been through the process and then come back to instruct those currently in training, and it works extremely well. I am sure that the particular training academy that I have in mind will have no problem complying with the provisions of the Bill.
I had not really appreciated—and this has probably not been highlighted enough—that the Bill is arguably deregulatory. Perhaps it does not fit in with their current agenda, but if the Government are still interested in deregulation, they should be putting forward this Bill as an example of deregulation, simplifying the statute book and making it easier for those affected to know which regulations apply to them and which do not. That is just an observation of mine, based on having listened to today’s debate. I have no hesitation whatsoever in supporting those who believe that the Bill should receive its Third Reading.
Rachel Hopkins [V]
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on her perseverance in moving this important Bill forward, particularly during these difficult times, when the pandemic has constrained our ability to debate and pass legislation. It has been a pleasure to be a co-sponsor of the Bill.
On Second Reading, almost exactly a year ago, drawing on my experience as a governor of Luton Sixth Form College, I made the point about how important the extension of the statutory safeguarding arrangements was to ensuring that all young people in post-16 education and training were protected by equitable safeguarding protocols. That is to ensure that they receive the support and have the best possible chance of succeeding in their studies and training. At that time, I particularly focused on the increasing level of mental health issues among our young people. I just want to reiterate the importance of that now more than ever, given the impact that the coronavirus pandemic has had on our young people, who face such a difficult year and such disruption to their education.
Just yesterday, I picked up a poll by Network Rail and the charity Chasing the Stigma, which reported that 69% of 18 to 24-year-olds had said that the coronavirus crisis had had a negative impact on their mental health; that compares with just 28% of the over-65s. The impact on our young people’s mental health will continue over the coming months, particularly with regard to dealing with assessed grades in the absence of exams and any impact that may have on progression choices for our children and young people.
My final point is that it is hugely important that all providers of post-16 education and training, including private providers, have that statutory duty for the safeguarding of our young people. I support the Bill and hope to see it pass its Third Reading today.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab) [V]
I praise my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for the work that she and others across the House have done to bring forward this important private Member’s Bill. I am happy that it has received cross-party support; keeping young people safe in further education should never be a party political issue.
It is surely common sense to ensure that the same safeguarding guidance should apply across the sector. It is also pleasing to see that the Bill simplifies safeguarding requirements for education providers. The Bill will bring 16-to-19, academies, specialist post-16 institutes and independent learning providers in scope of the duty to follow the statutory guidance note, which will ensure that our legislation goes further to keep children safe in education.
As the parent of a child who has been through further education and of another who will be entering it in the near future, I am pleased that the Bill will reassure parents that, no matter how their child’s education is being delivered, their child is being kept safe to the highest standards. Any improvements to the safety of our young people need to be welcomed. For that reason, I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham on bringing the Bill, which I fully support, to the House.
Mary Kelly Foy
With the leave of the House, I would like to make some brief final remarks. I pay tribute to every Member who has set aside party politics to speak in favour of the Bill in the interest of strengthening safeguarding for further education. The Bill is a fantastic example of that and I hope that Baroness Blower receives as much support for the Bill in the Lords as I have here.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill
Friday 12th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill
Friday 19th March 2021
(3 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, this is a brief, straightforward and technical Bill, but none the less important. Its purpose is simple and clear: it would extend the duty to safeguard and provide for the welfare of children to all providers of publicly funded post-16 education and training in England. All such providers would be required to follow relevant statutory guidance issued by the Department for Education, the current guidance being Keeping Children Safe in Education.
I pay tribute to Mary Kelly Foy, the Member for the City of Durham, for her work on this Bill in another place, in particular for its arrival in this House unamended. I welcome the fact that the Bill has cross-party and, importantly, government support.
As noble Lords may know, the landscape for 16 to 19 education is broad and varied. This has given rise to inconsistencies in the ways in which duties are placed on institutions and providers in this area. While there is an existing duty on local authorities which maintain schools, sixth forms and further education establishments to ensure that safeguarding obtains and child welfare is promoted, that duty does not extend in the same way to 16 to 19 academies, which, perhaps inexplicably, in law are neither schools nor colleges; nor does it extend to specialist post-16 institutions or independent learning providers.
The Bill would ensure that wherever 16 to 19 education is provided and accessed, the requirements as to safeguarding and the promotion of welfare would be the same. This lack of requirements expressed in a clear fashion needs to be remedied for all 16 to 19 education—of course, no more so than for those with complex special educational needs attending specialist post-16 institutions. Bringing specialist post-16 institutions and independent learning providers, as well as 16 to 19 academies, into line with other publicly funded 16 to 19 provision would create clarity and fairness. This is important for students themselves and, of course, for parents and carers on behalf of young people.
Clause 1 would amend the Education Act 2002 to extend the safeguarding duty to 16 to 19 academies, specialist post-16 institutions and independent learning providers, which provide further education where financial assistance—public money—is given for the provision of further education. This duty would be provided for in the funding agreements made with the Secretary of State.
It is envisaged that new T-levels will develop over the next two years. Of course, this is a work in progress at present. Many in your Lordships’ House have in-depth experience of education and will, I am sure, follow this development with interest. The development of T-levels, as envisaged, will see many more providers coming into the area. Therefore, it is critical that, if this expansion is to happen, it must be done with all appropriate safeguarding measures in place. Clause 2 extends the safeguarding duty to providers of education and training associated with T-levels or approved technical qualifications and to approved apprenticeship providers by amending the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to ensure that funding agreements require compliance with safeguarding. With young people beginning to get back on track properly with their education, this is the time to deal with this gap in the law and ensure that any young person who moves into 16 to 19 provision anywhere in England finds themselves in an establishment in which the safeguarding duty is clear and explicit and in which their welfare is promoted.
In conclusion, I echo the words of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett: I urge noble Lords to hold their usual enthusiasm for amendment in check in order to speed the passage of the Bill. I am sure that we will all agree that safeguarding and the welfare of children and young people are of central importance. The Bill will help to ensure that all 16 to 19 year-olds have the same safeguards and protections under the law.
Finally, I thank the Minister for meeting me at short notice to discuss the Bill; it was a most helpful meeting. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to support the Bill, and I take this opportunity to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, on all the work that she has done in preparing it. I also congratulate the honourable Member who introduced the Bill in the other place. I also welcome the Minister to her position, and I look forward to hearing her remarks in summing up.
I believe that the Bill addresses a very clear existing loophole in the law, and I imagine all noble Lords would wish to see this fulfilled. I will ask one specific question that arises out of the Bill and the opening remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blower. Could it be confirmed whether it is indeed the case that when a child or student in the 16 to 19 year-old age bracket—as with others—is statemented as a student with special needs, the money will follow the statement and the provision will go to the provider of the education to ensure that that student receives the special educational attention that they deserve?
I will take this opportunity to solicit support in relation to another loophole in an earlier age group and indeed all age groups through to 18 to 21 years old that we have identified in the Domestic Abuse Bill. I speak as a vice-president of the National Association of Child Contact Centres and a co-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Child Contact Centres and Services. It seems strange that local authorities are obviously obliged to check out whether, and make sure that, the appropriate arrangements for safeguarding, training and other issues of awareness are in place before a nursery or a childminder provision is allowed to open. Apparently, that is not currently the case with child contact centres. In precisely the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, has done the House a great service in highlighting the issues before us in the Bill, I am delighted to say that Amendment 21 to the Domestic Abuse Bill, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, has been carried by the House. I hope that it will engage support from all noble Lords and the other place when it proceeds there.
However, in addition to that loophole, a further one is before us today. I place the highest possible emphasis on safeguarding duties to be in place for every possible provision in education, particularly in the further education provision to 16 to 19 year-old pupils. I commend the Bill and am delighted to support it.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, this is one of those odd Bills where, when you look at it, you think, “You mean you actually need this? We missed this as we went through?”. I have probably been here too long and become cynical, but I said, “Right, what is the horror story behind this? What has gone wrong?”. Apparently, nothing has. This may be more by luck than by judgment, but nothing has gone wrong, so I commend everyone involved in this for taking action before they absolutely had to, because we are far too often very reactive.
I hope that, if we see something like this, all of us will bring it to attention and that the Government will respond in the same way. Everyone involved in this should take some credit for this: the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, the people who did this in the House of Commons and those involved going forward.
When she sums up, can the Minister—or the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, whichever is more appropriate—give us a bit of an idea about how it came to be and was spotted. That would be helpful going forward. Looking down at education, especially further education, and when you look through this and some of the changes that have taken place, it is understandable that it happened. However, the fact that we went through this without something going badly wrong does not mean to say that we will get away with it next time. Responsibility and being able to have an overview will be very important.
Further education is a very complicated area that spills into both secondary and higher education and connects in odd ways. This should have been done in the first place. I congratulate all those involved on seeing this and changing it, and I congratulate the Government on not fighting it but helping it get through. However, please can we have an overview of the process of finding this and what we will do to make sure that other oversights like this do not occur in the future?
Having said those rather grumpy and petulant words, I hope that the Bill gets through quickly because it is clearly needed.
Lord Blunkett (Lab) [V]
I also congratulate my honourable friend the Member of Parliament for the City of Durham on this, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Blower on carrying it forward in this House. I can shed a little light for the noble Lord, Lord Addington, on the fact that changes, particularly the introduction of academisation, introduced new ways of delivering services, including those for 16 to 19 year-olds, that had not previously been dealt with in Acts that provided the safeguarding that we are talking about today.
I can be blissfully brief because I will just put on record that I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and with what the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, said. I have two things, not for my noble friend to address but perhaps for the Minister to reflect on. First, I suggest moving very quickly on the issue of protection for young people of this age in relation to sporting facilities, which everyone is very well aware of. Secondly, there is an area that still needs to be addressed: looked-after children, or those in care, who, between the ages of 16 and 19, are moved into semi-autonomous facilities, in which they have semi-independent living but where norms of supervision, protection and safeguarding still do not exist. I hope that it will be possible for us to come back very quickly to these important issues in order to close further loopholes and ensure, as we always do, that we do not have a day zero but that we build and stand on the shoulders of those who came before us.
Baroness D'Souza (CB) [V]
My Lords, I too wholly support the Bill and congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, on bringing it forward. There is now widespread consensus that children have been and are among the groups worst affected by the pandemic. While welcoming the generous provision that the Government have made for continuing free school meals and other child welfare schemes, there are remaining concerns. The huge number of distinct projects, actors and specific funds in this field—for example, several local and central government departments, NGOs and schools—indicate a scattered approach to a continuing problem. Is it not now time to introduce a long-term coherent strategy to improve children’s welfare?
There are, of course, important initiatives, such as the National Food Strategy, the Marcus Rashford Child Food Poverty Task Force, the Food Foundation and the Children First Alliance, to name a few. However, given the funding available, the national concern and the fact that children remain especially vulnerable, a strong, accountable political voice is needed. That could be best achieved by appointing a Cabinet-level Minister for Children. Historically the Department for Education, the current responsible ministry, had a wider remit as the Department for Children, Families and Schools under previous Administrations. Today, the Department for Education has a Secretary of State, two Ministers of State—for universities and school standards respectively —and three parliamentary under-secretaries covering children and families, apprenticeships and skills, and the school system. A Cabinet Minister would pursue what needs to be done politically to ensure co-ordination and coherence around food, education, mental health and poverty programmes across government.
Specifically, a senior Minister would have the political weight to do the following: review where there is continuing need, including among older children, and what projects have proved most cost effective in meeting those needs; embrace the many diverse ideas, schemes and policies to arrive at a single, coherent strategy, such as has been achieved in New Zealand; and ensure a close working relationship with and between key players to include the Children’s Commissioner. The need is urgent, and the responsibility for children’s welfare across many different government departments risks losing the opportunity that we now have to use the funds to the best possible effect. A true voice for children at the heart of government is something that HMG might consider seriously and expediently.
Baroness Massey of Darwen (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I am pleased to support this Bill. I have a few comments on the issues that it throws up in relation to welfare for children. The aim of the Bill is clear and was well described by my noble friend Lady Blower, and I congratulate her. Crucially, it is about extending safeguarding the welfare of children to all providers of publicly funded education and training in England. The Bill is supported by many previous conventions, laws and practices. Safeguarding and promotion of welfare is defined in the articles of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, ratified by the UK in December 1991. A child is defined there as a person under 18.
I thank the House of Lords Library for its excellent notes on the Bill and for helpfully recalling the statutory guidance in January this year from the DfE and the DfE guidance of July 2018 around interagency working to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. It is worth noting that the guidance makes it very clear that:
“Nothing is more important than children’s welfare ... We want a system that responds to the needs and interests of children and families and not the other way around.”
It is clear also that local authorities working in partnership with other organisations have
“specific duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area”,
as set out in the important Children Acts 1989 and 2004. The Children and Social Work Act 2017 places specific
“new duties on key agencies in a local area ... the police, clinical commissioning groups and the local authority are under a duty to make arrangements to work together, and with other partners locally, to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area.”
That includes a child-centred approach, with early interventions and information, taking account of the needs and views of the child, assessing disabled children and their carers, children in need and secure youth establishments.
All this reflects an understanding that a holistic view of children, and holistic interventions for them, are essential. The Bill follows a similar view of partnership working, which would also cover independent providers. I therefore very much welcome it.
Given the agreement that the approach to children should be wide-reaching and holistic, with responsibilities shared across a number of agencies, does it not make sense for the Government to create a Cabinet post with responsibility for children, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza? This question is being asked more and more, not just by me and colleagues in your Lordships’ House but by MPs and the children’s voluntary sector. Are the Government listening?
Lord Young of Norwood Green (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I declare an interest as an apprenticeships ambassador, and certainly welcome this Bill. I congratulate the MP for the City of Durham and my noble friend Lady Blower on her comprehensive introduction. I have only one concern, which is the reference in the Bill to a simplified safeguarding system. If only that were true. I think that independent providers who do not have school systems to draw on will find this quite a challenge. Safeguarding is a bit of an industry because it is so complex and there are constant training needs.
If the safeguarding is to include topics such as county lines, FGM and, presumably, Protect, I hope that someone in government is thinking about how this can be simplified, because it is certainly not simple in schools and, every year, the Department for Education updates its safeguarding guidance. This academic year has been spectacularly difficult because schools did all the usual updates and rewrites in September and then, in January, discovered that it had to be done again because of Brexit, as the legal basis for the policies had changed. I hope the Minister will recognise this problem and undertake to look at the complexity of current guidance.
Nevertheless, like everyone else, I welcome the Bill, which addresses an important gap and ensures that, wherever young people are in the education system, they are protected.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP) [V]
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate following the clear and informative introduction from the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Norwood Green, who made important points about resource needs, which I shall seek to build on.
I shall, however, be fairly brief, because some of what I might have said has already been covered. It has been noticeable in the past few months that the number of invitations landing in my inbox referring to apprenticeships and other post-school training has leapt significantly, some of which I have been pleased to be able to take up. The term “lifelong learning”, long central to Green educational philosophy, has come to increasing prominence.
As the mover of the Bill in the other place said, it corrects an anomaly in the law by ending an unintentional oversight that meant that young people attending 16 to 19 academies, special post-16 institutions and independent learning providers were not protected in the same way as they would be at a school or further education college. I can only wholeheartedly endorse that intention but, following on from the previous speaker, I note that funding for this sector of education, which offers young people and adults who may not have had the same positive experiences in schools an additional and potentially life-changing opportunity, is clearly inadequate. To deliver on what is contained in this Bill, and for many other reasons, further education should be funded on an equal basis with other sectors.
As a former school governor, I am very aware of how many resources safeguarding issues can demand of educational institutions. That experience was in a primary school but, of course, the challenges faced by all young people can present similar issues and resource demands. The funding model should reflect and support the enormous social and economic benefits that accrue from lifelong learning and should not be focused purely on vocational skills—those that can be narrowly commercialised. Lifelong learning is also about being a good citizen, a member of a healthy family; it is about enriching lives and not just turning out servants of “the economy”. Of course, that requires proper safeguarding, and I welcome the steps in this Bill to ensure that. I wish it fast passage.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, this is an important piece of legislation, because it concerns the welfare of children and young people. We fully support its aim of closing a loophole in safeguarding duties for post-16 academies and independent providers. We also welcome that the Government are solidly behind it, as set out clearly by the Minister, Gillian Keegan, in another place—a position that I have no doubt the Minister will emphasise today.
It is perhaps surprising not just that a loophole exists but that it went unnoticed for so long, a point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Addington. Great credit is due to the honourable Member for the City of Durham, Mary Kelly Foy, for her awareness of the issue and for seizing the initiative to fill the gap. It would have been preferable had it been undertaken by government, but I accept that that would have been difficult; after all, there has not been an education Bill of any sort since the Technical and Further Education Act 2017. Perhaps the upcoming Queen’s Speech will bring that barren spell to a close—we shall see. I commend my noble friend Lady Blower for taking up the mantle as this Bill makes its way through your Lordships’ House. She brings a wealth of experience in education to the task and she spoke with passion on behalf of the young people who come within the reach of the Bill at a crucial, perhaps even vulnerable, point in their lives: the bridge between childhood and adulthood.
Although there exists a statutory duty on schools, sixth forms and FE colleges to ensure that they safeguard and promote the welfare of the young people who are their students, this does not apply to 16 to 19 academies or independent training providers. These providers do have safeguarding requirements as a condition of the funding they receive but, for some reason, legal safeguarding duties do not apply in the same way as for an FE college or school—perhaps the Minister can say how that came about.
The statutory guidance that will be developed to cover all providers will introduce long-overdue consistency. It is more by luck than good judgment that the fact that not all students and apprentices have hitherto been provided with the same level of safeguarding has not been exposed and tested until now. It barely needs stating that parents, too, must have confidence that the education and training providers in whose care their children are placed afford an appropriate level of safeguarding and are clear about their responsibilities to these young people.
So much has changed since the Bill was launched a year ago, but one thing that has not is the enduring importance of apprenticeships and skills, particularly for 16 to 19 year-olds, who will form the workforce of the future. The Government’s White Paper launched in January had much to say about that agenda, putting colleges at the heart of post-16 skills. T-levels have come in for much criticism but I hope they are allowed to develop and play their role in enabling some redress in the imbalance between the so-called technical and academic routes open to young people pondering their career prospects. Though set in an educational environment, T-levels have a work focus and a link to developing skills.
It is essential that the working and studying environments that these young people enter offer safeguarding levels that are consistent, no matter whether the tuition is delivered by further education providers or independent learning providers. I say “young people” but, in many cases, they are children. I echo the point made by my noble friend Lady Massey of Darwen and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza: the Government really should consider whether children are adequately represented at Cabinet level. The call for the creation of a Cabinet post is something to which I hope the Minister will give a positive response in respect of the question from my noble friend Lady Massey.
There is every reason to believe that the Bill will achieve the consistency that many noble Lords referred to today. I hope the Minister is able to confirm that the amendments required to the guidance on keeping children safe in education will be swiftly introduced, so that the uncertainty that the Bill has highlighted will become a thing of the past.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Department for International Trade (Baroness Berridge) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed to this debate today and pay particular tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, for sponsoring the Bill, and to the honourable Member for the City of Durham. It was a pleasure to meet the noble Baroness and I thank her for her efforts in developing the Bill and leading it successfully through this place. The importance we all place on safeguarding is underlined by the cross-party support and collaboration which has characterised, and I hope will continue to characterise, the passage of the Bill so far.
I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for raising the importance of protective measures for young people in a sports context. The distressing reports we have seen this week highlight yet again how vital it is to have an effective, transparent and relevant safeguarding regime. As the Minister responsible for out-of-school settings, I will look at these matters in detail. The noble Lord also raised the issue of children in supported accommodation. Where a child cannot live at home, it is one of the state’s most important responsibilities to ensure that they are kept safe and flourish. That is why local authorities have a duty to provide services to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in their area. The situations he refers to concern accommodation, rather than education, but I am sure he is aware that we are banning, as of this September, the use of that accommodation for under-16s, and there will be a consultation on national minimum standards for those over 16 accommodated in that way.
The Bill will help streamline and simplify the current safeguarding system. It will give clarity on safeguarding to providers, students, apprentices and parents, making it easier to understand the protections that are in place. It will make the Secretary of State for Education directly accountable for ensuring that the terms of funding for post-16 education and training providers include safeguarding duties, further demonstrating the Government’s commitment to safeguarding. The Bill will ensure that safeguarding duties on providers of post-16 education or training will in future come from one of two sources: from the statute or the funding agreement with the Secretary of State. All providers must have regard to the statutory guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education.
Our post-16 education and training landscape is diverse. It has evolved over time, as the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, outlined, to respond to our diverse education and training needs, but within this diversity a potential anomaly has been identified which might give rise to some confusion over safeguarding duties. It is important that I take this opportunity to reassure the House that all children in post-16 education and training are currently protected by safeguarding arrangements; I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Watson, in particular. However, there has been complexity over the origin of those duties and, in safeguarding, it should be simple and clear. So, for example, the safeguarding duties at the moment for providers of T-levels or training to apprentices aged 17 and below are determined by the statutory regime applicable to that provider type and through funding agreements. In contrast, safeguarding arrangements in 16 to 19 academies are a condition of funding agreements.
The specific obligations in these funding agreements will differ according to when the agreements were entered into. Inconsistencies in these obligations make safeguarding more complex for providers than it needs to be, and this will increase the risk of things going wrong. The origin of the safeguarding duties was raised by those providers. It is an attempt to future-proof: if it is the Secretary of State’s obligation to put it in a funding agreement, it matters not what kind of provider evolves in the future; it must be within the funding agreement.
On the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, there is no change here to the funding of special educational needs placements; we have just brought into scope the specialist 16 to 19 providers. It will apply to any provider in the 16 to 19 sector where there is a contract and it is funded through the ESFA, which is basically public funding. The Bill will also ensure that the same safeguarding obligations that currently apply to schools are clearly placed on academy trusts in the 16 to 19 sector.
The Bill makes clear that all providers should have regard to the statutory guidance. To answer the noble Lord, Lord Young, there are annual updates to the guidance, but one year they will be technical updates and the following year substantive updates. It is unfortunate that, during Covid, we were in the process of doing the round of substantive updates, because the threats for children in education evolve and develop at pace. We now include specific sections on peer-to-peer abuse, on child exploitation, on county lines and so on. Unfortunately, the guidance needs to be looked at annually but, as I said, it is substantive one year and technical the next. However, having one set of guidance will make it simpler for providers to know what their duties are.
On the question raised by the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Massey, the Secretary of State for Education is responsible for driving forward the policy on families and has appointed a specific adviser. We recognise that there is more to do on cross-government co-ordination but, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, in the Department for Education we have a mental health strategy task force group that is led by the Minister for Children and the Minister for Universities, Ministers Ford and Donelan.
The post-16 education and training provider landscape is diverse, but the safeguarding duty should be clear and universal. The changes in this Bill are important but technical. A provider which is already fulfilling its safeguarding duty would not need to make any practical changes. This Bill should not lead to any additional costs or burdens on education or training providers—in fact, quite the opposite.
The Government are pleased to be able to support this Bill. It simplifies the current system and clarifies the duties and obligations on education and training providers. Ultimately, its overwhelming purpose is to keep children safe in education.
Baroness Blower (Lab) [V]
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her very full responses to all the points raised in the debate and for the commitment she has demonstrated to safeguarding. It is of course true that safeguarding provisions existed but, as I and other noble Lords mentioned, they were inconsistent because of the piecemeal development in post-16 education. With the passage of this Bill, we will have a much more coherent position. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that it was not so much missed as that things just grew. However, now we will be able to put things on a much more consistent, coherent and clear footing.
I genuinely hope the Minister is right that this will be much easier for all providers to work with and that it will not require any further resources, since none appears to be forthcoming, but it will be important to keep this under review. As my noble friend Lord Young said, there are significant complexities, but we hope that the purpose of this Bill will be fulfilled and it will make everything easier to manage, so that we can ensure that all young people in 16 to 19 provision, wherever they are, are properly safeguarded and their welfare is promoted and supported.
My thanks go to all noble Lords who participated in this debate. I particularly thank my noble friend Lord Watson for his support. I beg to move.
Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill
Thursday 15th April 2021
(3 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to speak in Committee. Manuscript amendments are not possible at present. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Bill
Monday 26th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Education and Training (Welfare of Children) Act 2021 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I offer my thanks to the Minister for her help in securing the passage of the Bill. I also thank all noble Lords who spoke on this small but equally perfectly formed Bill, which is important although it covers very few words. I beg to move.
Royal Assent
Thursday 29th April 2021
(3 years, 7 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 12 March 2021 - (12 Mar 2021)