Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Monday 1st December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Relevant Document: Second Report of the Education Committee, Scrutiny of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, HC 732, and the Government response, HC 925.]

16:30

[Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered e-petition 722377 relating to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your authority, Ms Barker. As Chair of the Petitions Committee, it is a privilege to open these petitions debates. I do find it extraordinarily encouraging that so many members of the public are actively engaging with the Government and, in this case, engaging with legislation that is passing through Parliament.

The e-petition was created by Michelle Zaher, who is in the Public Gallery. Prior to the debate, I had the pleasure of speaking to Michelle to understand the motivations behind the creation of this petition. She explained to me that she believes that the implementation of the Bill falls far short of addressing the real problems in the education system, and that instead it tightens controls on parents and educators without consultation.

There are a plethora of reasons why signatories of the petition believe the Bill needs to be withdrawn, but the primary concern that came out of my conversations in preparation for this debate was the lack of consultation with key stakeholders in the Bill’s development. The Bill has the opportunity to embed children’s wellbeing at the heart of our education system and to create lasting safeguards and opportunities that no amount of voluntary guidance could match. However, those who signed the petition believe that the Bill does not do that, and that it should be withdrawn before it goes any further. We are here to debate their concerns.

Before we start the debate, I note that we still await the White Paper for the schools section of the Bill, so we approach the debate on the legislation without the full picture before us. I shall begin by outlining what the Bill aims to do. To put it simply, the Bill is set to prioritise children’s needs and raise standards for every child across the whole of England. It introduces mandatory participation in education, safeguarding, clear information sharing and multi-agency child protection teams. In an ambition to tackle inequality, the Government have included measures to support kinship carers and care leavers, and to provide free breakfast clubs in primary schools.

Crucially, the Bill seeks to remove unnecessary barriers in our schools by limiting branded uniform items, standardising teacher pay and conditions across academies, and establishing registers to safeguard children not in school.

[Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for outlining the Government’s supposed intention for the Bill, but is he aware that Amanda Spielman, the former Ofsted chief inspector, said that this Bill was “very likely” to have a detrimental effect on children’s education?

[Jamie Stone]

I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. That point was made in the consultation I had before this debate.

To continue, the Bill proposes wellbeing co-ordinators, structured mental health assessments and greater collaboration with community health services to embed wellbeing alongside literacy and numeracy as part of what every school must nurture. These are noble aims. Heaven knows, if a child is struggling mentally, they are not going to learn very much about trigonometry, are they?

We must approach the issues that campaigners have with the Bill. Previous Governments have spent decades giving academies and trusts more and more control, only for this Government to take it away again. Sometimes the best way to support wellbeing is to give schools freedom, not more top-down rules. In some instances, an attempt to standardise pay would mean giving our teachers in academies pay cuts. School groups have emphasised to me that the importance of local decision making cannot be underestimated.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

Perhaps I have misunderstood, but I am sure that the Minister has clarified that the standardised pay across the sector should be a floor, not a ceiling. Can the hon. Gentleman confirm that that is his understanding too?

[Jamie Stone]

It will be interesting to see what the Minister says on that. Perhaps there is a little bit of misunderstanding on that issue. Let us leave it at that.

Teachers, parents and local authorities often know best what their children need—far more than we in Westminster ever could. They understand their communities and deserve to be trusted and, I believe, properly consulted.

The Bill also reaches into the world of home education, with measures such as a national register of children not in school, requirements for local authority consent to home school in certain cases and powers for councils to intervene if a home environment is deemed unsuitable.

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the way he is introducing this petition. I am sure he is aware of the case of my murdered constituent, Sara Sharif from Woking, who was abused, tortured and murdered. The safeguarding report that came out last month highlighted the failings in the home schooling system and the fact that a register is needed. Does he agree that parents should lose the right to home school in the event of child safeguarding concerns?

[Jamie Stone]

In proceeding with a Bill of this nature, that precise point has to be taken into account and weighed in the balance, because it is a matter of getting it right. That is precisely the reason behind the petition. I stress that many people think that we are not getting it right at this stage, but improvements can be made.

It is a fact that more families than ever are turning to home schooling. Some do it because the nearest school is miles away or parents deem it to be teaching to an inadequate standard; others because their child thrives better with one-on-one attention and teaching, perhaps for special needs that a standard classroom cannot accommodate. Campaigners for home education—some of whom I heard from in preparation for the debate—fear that the Bill amounts to an attack on their parental rights.

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

I apologise in advance, Ms Barker, for the fact that I cannot stay for the full debate because I have been assigned to a Delegated Legislation Committee. I want to echo the concerns of my constituents, many of whom are home educators, about the legislation. Will the hon. Member join me in calling on the Government to put firmer safeguards on data security in the Bill, provide clear protections in the legislation for parental responsibility to decide what education is in their child’s best interests and ensure that the Bill does not try to force home educators to fit into school-style timetables?

[Jamie Stone]

I am sure that is a wise intervention. I should imagine that we can all take heed of it, including the Minister.

The parents I mentioned previously argue that legislation for the regular registration of what learning has taken place in the home limits a diverse community where learning might be child-led one day and structured the next—all tailored to individual family needs. Those parents also spoke to me about their unease concerning the reach of new information-sharing duties and the requirement for child registers and unique identifiers. They fear overreach, diminished family autonomy and the erosion of parental rights, particularly where home education is concerned.

I should also add that I have been approached by religious groups that have serious concerns about the Bill as currently drafted. They believe that it fails to recognise the vital structure of education in stricter religious communities. In the case of Jewish children who attend yeshiva alongside homeschooling, for instance, the Bill seeks to pigeonhole the method of schooling that a yeshiva provides within two categories that do not apply to it. It has been argued that the lack of proper consultation with affected groups means that under the current proposals, yeshiva schools would be forced to close their doors.

The sheer scope of the Bill means that there are numerous factors about both wellbeing and schools that require thorough discussion. There is a substantial array of groups with specific grievances about particular clauses in the Bill. I hope that there will be sufficient space in the debate this evening and in the days, weeks and months ahead for those cases to be heard and considered properly. I see that a good number of colleagues have joined us for the debate, for which I am grateful as Chair of the Petitions Committee. I will conclude my remarks to allow everyone to participate.

16:39

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. I begin by thanking the petition organiser and all who engaged with it. Like many colleagues from across the House, I entered politics because I wanted to make sure that all children, regardless of their background or circumstances, had the opportunity to have the best start in life. I am sure that that is also the motivation for the majority of those who signed the petition, even if we might disagree that the Bill represents positive progress. Although the petition primarily addresses the school reform aspects of the Bill, it is important to underscore the significant child protection measures it contains that would be lost if the Bill were withdrawn as the petition proposes.

The measures broadly enjoy cross-party support and have been developed following what we have learned when things have gone tragically wrong. One of the most significant protections is the introduction of a single unique identifier for every child, an innovation that will transform how we monitor and safeguard children throughout their educational journey. With a unique identifier, schools, social services, the NHS and other agencies can securely share essential information, ensuring that no child slips through the cracks. Instead of scattering attendance records, safeguarding concerns and progress across disconnected systems, this approach brings everything together. For a child at risk, perhaps moving between schools or facing hardship at home, this identifier becomes a vital thread linking their past experiences to the support they need today.

Time after time, when a serious case review occurs and the resultant review looks at how it could have been prevented, featuring in there somewhere will be poor communication and a failure to connect the dots between agencies. The unique identifier is a key step towards preventing that from happening. Safeguarding cannot happen in silos. That is why the Bill creates multi-agency child protection teams, bringing together professionals from education, health, social services, mental health, housing and law enforcement. When the teams work collaboratively, risks are identified earlier and responses are more effective. For children living in unstable homes, struggling with mental health challenges or at risk of neglect, the joined-up approach can become life changing.

Safeguarding is only part of the ambition, however. True wellbeing depends not just on safety, but on opportunity. That is why the Bill also focuses on raising standards and strengthening support across schools. When education and wellbeing work hand in hand, every child has the chance to thrive academically and personally. The mission that lies at the heart of the Bill is to break the link between a child’s background and their future success. I believe that part 2 is fundamental to that mission. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) is welcome to intervene.

School reform is about creating the conditions for success. The introduction of regional improvement for standards and excellence teams will lead efforts to improve attendance and behaviour. The teams will provide the expertise and focus needed to tackle persistent challenges and support schools in creating environments where every child can flourish. The clear expectation is that schools employ qualified teachers and teach the national curriculum. Those are the foundations of a high quality education system, ensuring that every child, wherever they live, has access to excellent teaching and a broad, balanced curriculum.

Academy reform is about clarity and accountability. We have seen trusts that deliver exceptional support, helping schools raise standards and share expertise effectively. But we have also seen cases where that support has been absent, where performance has declined and communities have had little influence over improvement. The current system has grown fragmented and inconsistent. Structures alone do not guarantee success. What matters is the quality of teaching, the leadership and the support a child receives at home. The reforms will restore coherence and ensure that every school is part of a system focused on outcomes, not organisational labels. It is time to move beyond debates about governance and put standards at the heart of the conversation.

Other measures tackle barriers to learning head-on. Free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school will ensure no child starts the day hungry. Limiting branded items in school uniforms will ease cost of living pressures and promote inclusion.

[Gregory Stafford]

On the point about branded school uniforms, headteachers in my constituency have often bulk bought school uniforms through a supplier, so it can be more cost-effective to buy the uniform through the branded supplier than to buy it on the high street. Surely what the hon. Gentleman suggests could have a perverse outcome. Does he not think that if branded items can be bought at a cheaper cost, they would be better than buying off the peg?

[Andrew Cooper]

That is an interesting approach; it is a shame that has not been rolled out more widely. That is not the experience in the schools in my constituency. Across the population, the measures in the Bill will reduce costs for all. That is my view; the hon. Gentleman is welcome to his.

In short, the Bill is about ensuring that every child is safe, supported and given the chance to succeed. To withdraw it would be to turn away from that vision. Instead, we must commit to a future in which protection and education go hand in hand and no child is left behind.

16:45

[Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this important debate.

Home education is often misunderstood. Some dismiss it as children avoiding education. Others portray it as an isolating environment, and even a potential safeguarding risk. Although that may be the case in the smallest handful of instances, the reality is that the large proportion of home educating families are those who have been let down by the state education system and act in the best interest of their child. For them, home education is not the easy choice but, often, a lifeline—a vital alternative for children who do not “fit” within the confines of mainstream schooling.

Families turn to home education for many reasons. We might be talking about children who have medical needs or anxiety and have been pressured out of school, those excluded because of unmet special educational needs, or those enduring unresolved bullying. Some parents make a philosophical choice to educate outside the mainstream system. This discretionary right, exercised by parents and guardians, allows learning to be flexible, personalised and responsive.

Taking away the option to home school through a poorly designed policy that fails to recognise the context and individuality of each home education journey is yet another example of the Government refusing to listen to communities they do not understand. We saw that with the changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief for farmers, and we saw it with the unjustified housing targets imposed on rural communities. We now see it again—this time with thousands of home educators’ pleas being ignored.

Despite the Government’s unwillingness to listen, I have had the pleasure of meeting numerous constituents and campaigners to discuss the potential impact of the flawed Bill and to listen to their individual stories. One has a child with Down syndrome and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and another who is autistic, with global developmental delays and dyslexia. They were overwhelmed and dysregulated by the one-size-fits-all design of the school system, but now they are home educated and can truly thrive in a personalised learning environment.

Another person I met has a child with ADHD, autism and dyslexia who was severely bullied in two separate schools, leading to serious mental health struggles. For the wellbeing of both the child and the wider family, the child had to be removed from school and is now home educated and safe from ever enduring that traumatic experience again. Those are just two families among the thousands who have exercised their discretionary right to home educate their children in their and their family’s best interest.

[Gregory Stafford]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for outlining the situations in which his constituents find themselves, as mine do in many cases. Is he as concerned as I am that mandatory registration for home education essentially risks treating every parent as a potential safeguarding concern, rather than recognising the fact that they are doing their absolute best for their children? They absolutely want to comply with the law and should not be treated as criminals in the first instance.

[Bradley Thomas]

I agree wholeheartedly. My hon. Friend demonstrates the perverse reality of what is proposed, in that these parents and children are often seeking to break away from being a one-size-fits-all family, but they are being pushed into a one-size-fits-all approach that risks stigmatising home education and the very children who benefit from it.

Importantly, in the instances that I have cited, both families will be adversely affected should the Bill progress to further stages in its current state. As many home educators have argued, the Government, schools and local authorities are not the ones witnessing the emotional breakdowns before and after school. They are not the ones being forced to watch their children’s health deteriorate because of unsuitable environments. They are not the ones supporting them at medical appointments or sitting up with them late at night.

A decision to home educate is not often taken lightly. Parents and guardians weigh up the benefits and consequences of all education options. If, after that careful deliberation, a parent or guardian, who knows their children best, chooses to take the leap into home education and provides a safe, stable and nurturing environment, they should be free to continue with that choice.

[Mr Forster]

The hon. Member heard me talk earlier about safeguarding concerns. Although home education can have huge benefits to families, does he agree with the Children’s Commissioner, who has said that the proper oversight of children being educated at home is important, and that councils should be required to sign off on home education requests for the most vulnerable children?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly valuable point that none of us can disagree with in principle. Safeguarding has to be a foundation of the education system. The point is that the Bill attempts to provide a one-size-fits-all approach, but it does not quite strike the right balance. In the process, many families feel they are being stigmatised.

It is not disputed that stronger safeguards for vulnerable children are essential. It is a tragic reality that many children in abusive or neglectful homes are safer at school than they are at home, but to push all home educating families into that category is not only an insult to the vast majority of responsible, caring families who turned to home education because of failures in state schooling, but a potentially greater safeguarding risk, as it stretches already limited resources even further. Requiring local authorities continually to assess and investigate perfectly safe environments diverts time and resources from children in genuine danger and urgent need of protection. BBC reports reveal that local authorities are set to face a funding shortfall of more than £5.7 billion by 2026-27. The Children’s Commissioner has warned that this crisis poses a direct threat to the wellbeing of children and young adults.

Meanwhile, the number of school pupils with education, health and care plans surged by 71% between 2018 and 2024. Consequently, local authorities have amassed severe deficits in their high needs budgets, with the Institute for Fiscal Studies estimating a total shortfall of at least £3.3 billion at the end of last year. The Bill risks compounding the problem by stretching already overstretched resources, deepening financial pressures and weakening the fight against safeguarding risks. Thousands more children could be forced into placements within overcrowded schools, further exacerbating the crisis.

A Public Accounts Committee report published at the start of this year concluded that the special educational needs system is inconsistent, inequitable and not delivering in line with expectations, which inevitably undermines parents’ confidence in it. The Office for National Statistics predicts that 1.5 million children aged 10 to 15 experience in-person bullying. Which of the figures I have outlined offers any reassurance that children and young adults with complex needs or traumatic pasts would be properly cared for if removed from safe, personalised learning environments?

[Andrew Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to identify many of the reasons why parents choose to home educate. It quite often is as a result of bullying or an unmet special educational need. But under our current system, local authorities are not aware of the reason why somebody chooses to home educate. Under the Bill, parents will be required to provide that reason to local authorities. That might flag up to the local authority that there is a bullying problem at a school, or that there is a problem with the way special educational needs are dealt with. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that making that information available to the local authority is a plus that the Bill will deliver?

[Bradley Thomas]

The hon. Gentleman is right that it potentially could flag up those things; equally, it could be another burden on local authorities that are under-resourced to fulfil the requirements. It also could place a burden on parents and families that feels like stigmatisation.

The right balance must be struck between strengthening the safeguards for children and young adults and ensuring that the new legislation does not unintentionally harm thousands due to a one-size-fits-all approach. Rather than demonising all home educators and introducing measures that, in practice, will fail to improve many children’s wellbeing, the Government should redirect their focus towards improving support for SEND provision and children’s social services, ensuring better working relationships between home educators and local authorities, and fostering school environments that actively tackle bullying and rising classroom violence.

16:54

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this really important debate. My feelings are very much aligned with the around 300 people in my constituency who signed the petition. At the heart of this debate is a fallacy: that children are more at risk in home educating families than they are at school. In fact, the figures show the exact opposite. I will come back to that point in detail.

My concerns are about not only home educating families but rural schools and rural environments, where the limited resources mean that the Bill’s more onerous requirements on schools could drive some smaller rural schools out of the system and lead to them being closed. Rural areas have fewer and smaller schools, and rural schools have fewer administrative resources to deal with the new administrative burdens such as supporting staff to meet the new qualified teacher status requirements, dealing with increased monitoring, handling fluctuating pupil numbers and budgets, and so on.

There are significant risks to small rural schools that may well lead to even more pupils ending up in home education settings as a result of the lack of choice and lack of diversity of supply in rural environments. If pupils do end up in home educating families, they will find the environment is even harsher and the support from the Government is even more non-existent than it was before, and that the general environment is less and less helpful.

We have to take concerns about safeguarding seriously, as every hon. Member across this Chamber would agree. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) has done serious work on that issue. I am happy to accept some of the Bill’s provisions, but there are real concerns about its more onerous requirements. I have significant concerns about the single unique identifier in particular. Let us remember that it gives any public body the ability to share any information, whether or not it is right, correct and accurate, without the knowledge or consent of parents. Anyone who thinks the public sector is good at looking after our data, and getting it accurate, has probably been living on the moon.

[Gregory Stafford]

Some weeks ago we had a debate in this Chamber about a petition signed by over 3 million people who oppose a national identity card scheme. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if those people knew the details in the Bill, they would be equally shocked and concerned?

[Gideon Amos]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman. All the concerns that lead me to oppose digital ID cards also lead me to oppose a digital ID for all our children. As the campaigners behind the petition have stated:

“Once children’s data is out there it cannot be controlled nor put back in the box.”

I could not agree more.

According to the Government’s own reports, 58 critical Government IT systems have significant gaps in cyber-security. Is that the kind of system into which we wish to put all our children’s details? Is that the kind of system that anyone wishes the data of their children and grandchildren to be put into? I do not think so. The Metropolitan police lost the details of 47,000 of its own officers. Let us take that as an example of how the public sector handles data, and consider whether we really want to provide the power to share data about our children across all public bodies: councils, social services departments, health authorities, schools, academies and all the rest of them.

As I said earlier, it is often held to be the case that home educating families are unsafe environments, but the evidence shows the opposite. Only 11% of section 47 child protection inquiries into home educating families result in a child protection order being put in place, and such families are proportionally subject to far more child protection inquiries than non-home educating families, so they are massively over-represented within that cohort. The figures for children who are at school show that not 11% but 26% of inquiries result in child protection orders. Bearing in mind that a greater proportion of home educating families are investigated than families with children at school, a far greater proportion—more than double—of investigations of families with children at school result in a child protection order. The facts are evident: it is not appropriate to stigmatise home educating families.

I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) for proposing an amendment to the Bill so that home educating families would not have to pay examination fees to take exams. There is zero support for home educating families. The Bill brings in even more stigma against those families. The amendment was defeated.

There is nothing in the Bill that will support home educating families, many of whom, as we have heard, are families with disabled children. A much higher proportion of disabled children are represented in the home educating community than in the school community, for the reasons we have heard—because special provision is not there and SEND provision cannot be obtained where it is needed, so many families give up on the school system. Some families need to keep their children safe so provide education at home. The vast majority of those families do so safely, putting incredible hard work into the education of their children.

Instead of the stigma put forward in the Bill, there should be support for home educating families, more work locally, more positive relationships between home educating families and local authorities, more positive work towards improving the education offer for those children and more support for those families at a difficult stage in the education of their children, many of whom will go back to school or college later on in life.

17:01

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is an important piece of legislation for this Government. Among other things, it will drive higher standards in our schools, put more qualified teachers at the front of classrooms, bring down the cost of uniforms for families and create a new duty to establish multi-agency child protection teams. It is right that the Government are looking to implement the Bill, including all the measures around home educating.

I will talk about two things in particular: first, the provisions for children who find themselves between hospital, home and school; and secondly, home educating. I speak not only as an MP on behalf of constituents, but as someone with vast personal experience of educational interruption and learning in non-traditional settings. When I was 13, the day after we broke up for the summer holidays in year 8, I had a freak accident in which I shattered my right hip and did irreversible damage to my back. From that point on, I did not walk for four of my teenage years, and I did not have a full year at school from years 9 to 12. Instead I received a mixture of home education, teaching at the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel in east London and school. When I eventually did return to school, I went back a year, which was not a great experience and was a reminder of why people do not want to wind up in the year below.

I know that learning in non-traditional settings does not need to hold children back. There are challenges in delivery, despite the hard work that staff and parents put in, but these can be overcome. Having returned recently to the Royal London, I have seen the progress made in the provision of home education and education on the wards, overcoming many of these challenges. Children are now taught by a dedicated hospital school, with three onsite classrooms at the Royal London, strong provision of information and communication technology and partnerships with organisations such as the London Symphony Orchestra and the National Portrait Gallery.

This morning, before I came to Parliament, I had the pleasure of visiting the Bethlem Royal hospital in my constituency, which is the world’s oldest psychiatric institution, founded in 1247. It has a thriving hospital school that I have had the pleasure of visiting many times. I have also visited hospital schools at King’s and the Princess Royal University hospital, which serve my constituents.

I have raised this with the Minister before, and I know she is dedicated and committed to it: we must make sure we reflect the experiences of children who find themselves between multiple settings—hospital, school and home. Often, that can be done in parallel. I can remember being in hospital one week, at home the following week and in school the next. There are challenges in delivering that. However, I hope this Bill will reflect on that, and I know that Minister is very committed to that.

I also want to touch on the importance of home educated learning. Given my experience of home education at times, I have been pleased to engage with home educating families in my constituency. That has included individual surgeries with parents and a roundtable with parents and students during UK Parliament Week, which included dozens of families and children—I told Corin, Adelaide, Peter, Harper, Paige and Addison that I would mention them today. Addison is here in the Gallery today with his mother, Penny. During these interactions, parents, as well as children such as Addison, have carefully laid out their concerns with the Bill, including issues around the right to remove a child from school, what constitutes a “suitable education” under the Bill and the administrative burden that the Bill could place on parents. Today, I wish to bring those to the attention of the Minister.

First, under the Bill, removing a child from school would create a requirement for local authority consent before placing children in a special school or for those on a child protection plan to be removed from school. The local authority must consider the child’s best interests in that decision. Some children in special schools require complex, specialised care, and so it is right that local authorities ensure they would be best served by being home educated. However, parents are concerned about how local authorities, many of which are stretched thin and have let down parents before, will interpret this requirement. In Bromley, we have a Conservative-run council with some of the highest waiting lists for EHCPs in the country, and I can understand why parents who have tried to interact with that council before would have concerns about it having authority over whether they can remove their child from school.

My second point is on the definition of what constitutes a “suitable education”. The Bill requires local authorities to issue school attendance orders in cases where it appears that a child may not be receiving a suitable education. We know that children learn differently. Take Addison, my constituent here today. He is certainly learning through attending this debate, but his family may worry that activities such as this will not be classified as contributing towards a suitable education. That is a particular concern for some children with SEND, who may struggle to learn in a traditional setting but thrive in other contexts. Our approach to education and what we define as being suitable must account for this.

My final point on this Bill is its potential administrative burden, something I have raised previously in education oral questions—I thanked the schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for his reassurance then. Many parents worry that they will have to submit large volumes of data as a result of the Bill. The way the Bill requires data to be collected does not square with the realities of home education. Will the Minister reconfirm that it will not be a requirement of the Bill for families like Penny and Addison to report on things such as accounting for Scouts groups in the evening or football activities—things that we would not ask other families to do? I know that has been said in the House previously, but that reconfirmation would be great.

I would like to touch on solutions and conclusions, and I hope that the concerns I have raised will be taken into consideration. In particular, on all sides of the House we need to do a lot more work and thinking about how we support the tens of thousands of children who find themselves between hospital and school every single year, and the inequalities and disparities between some hospitals that have lots of resources—such as Great Ormond Street hospital, the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital and the Royal London, where I was—and other hospitals across the country.

It is also my belief that none of the issues with the Bill that I have raised today represent innate, fundamental flaws in its logic. Instead, they represent risks in the implementation. There are risks that I, as well as organisations representing SEND and home ed parents, believe can be mitigated through minor changes and strong statutory guidance that considers the concerns of parents. Importantly, the statutory guidance must account for the plethora of different situations that local authorities find themselves in when it comes to SEND, and the different approaches that they may attempt to take. If we are successful in doing this, we can ensure that all children are protected while properly preserving the rights of those who wish to home educate their children, such as those dedicated parents I have in my constituency.

17:07

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you presiding, Ms Barker. This has been a good debate, and very good points have been made by hon. Members on all sides, including the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who has just spoken. This is a rare and important opportunity to talk about the vital role of hospital schools.

I do not intend to go through every measure in this Bill in detail; we did that at Committee stage, and I took that opportunity to go through many of its measures then. However, I will make a few broad observations about it. First, there are things in this Bill that we like. There are things in this Bill that were in the Conservatives’ earlier Bill, and we should all welcome some of the moves on, for example, multi-agency safeguarding, the expansion of the role of virtual school heads, and so on. Let us be clear—and Ministers, I am sure, will not try to say this today—that if the Government say that they want to withdraw the Bill, it does not mean that they do not like any aspect in it. Ministers are in charge of the Parliamentary timetable and are perfectly capable of withdrawing a Bill, noting that it is nicely set out in discrete units, and coming back the next day or the next week with a better Bill that does not include the bad bits and but does include the good bits.

To be clear, there are many things in the Bill that it would be better to be rid of. It is, I am afraid, a mix of trying to fix problems that do not exist; some retail offers, at least one of which is set to backfire with significant long-term consequences; an over-invasive approach to parents exercising their right, and thereby often giving up a great deal personally, to home educate; and worst, an attack on the school freedoms that have underpinned the great performance improvements that we have seen in schools in England over the last decade.

Let us remind ourselves what that record is. Our primary school readers are now the best in the western world. At secondary, our performance has improved from 27th to 11th in maths and from 25th to 13th in reading. The attainment gap has narrowed, and children eligible for free school meals are now 50% more likely to go to university than they were in 2010. What drove that improvement? It was standards and quality; brilliant teachers with autonomy and accountability; a knowledge-rich curriculum and proven methods, such as synthetic phonics and maths mastery; and a system in which schools learned from schools, with a hub-and-spoke network for different subjects and disciplines. But most of all, it was about academy trusts, where schools could learn from one another.

We knew that that system would drive up standards only if it also ensured diversity and parental choice. People need clear information, which is why Ofsted reports are so important, and why Progress 8 replaced the previous, contextual value-added measure, as a much better way of measuring children’s progress at school. That choice is necessary, which is why academies and free schools were at the heart of our approach.

I am sad to say that, all the while, there was what statisticians call a natural experiment going on. While those reforms were being pursued in England, in other nations of the United Kingdom—in Scotland and particularly in Wales—they were not. If anybody doubts the benefit of these reforms, they have only to look at the comparative results of the different nations of the United Kingdom.

The Government have already stopped new free schools, and this Bill stops more schools getting academy freedoms and erodes the freedoms of existing academies. I have said that the Bill seeks to fix problems that do not exist, and there is no evidence that academies pay teachers less than other types of schools, yet we have these new rules on the statutory pay and conditions framework. There is no evidence that there are armies of unqualified teachers marching through our schools. The proportion of teachers in our schools who are not qualified today is 3.1%. Can you guess what it was in 2010, when the Government changed, Ms Barker? It was 3.2%. There are good reasons to have unqualified staff in school sometimes. Then there is the national curriculum. Schools are already obliged to follow a broad and balanced curriculum, and they get measured on that by Ofsted, yet we now have a requirement in primary legislation to slavishly follow the detail of the national curriculum in its entirety, thereby removing the opportunity for any innovation and differentiation.

Alongside that, the Government have abandoned the EBacc, they are unpicking Progress 8 and, in parallel, they have moved the standard-setting function in technical and vocational education from an independent institute to a body that was first inside the Department for Education and then, inexplicably, moved into the Department for Work and Pensions.

Will the Government meet their targets? Of course they will, because they are in charge of deciding what counts as meeting the target. We saw that the last time Labour were in government, with the famous “five or more GCSEs at grade C or above”. I counted 11 ways in which that statistic was massaged so that every year it looked like the results were getting better and better, when all the while we were tumbling down the international tables comparing attainment at school, and not only in the PISA results. The OECD survey of young adults’ skills looks at countries across the OECD, and we were the only country in that survey where the literacy and numeracy of young adults who had newly left school were worse than those of the generation about to retire.

At least at that time, the then new Labour Government talked about academic excellence. Now, such talk is out of fashion, because it is believed that striving for excellence is somehow elitist. It is not—striving for academic excellence in state schools is the very opposite of elitism. It is what allows children and people from ordinary families to get on a level playing field with those who are in the elite. I say to Ministers, “Please, please don’t undo the progress of the last decade and a half”—some of which, by the way, built on what their predecessors did in the new Labour Government.

[Liam Conlon]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I am coming very close to the end of my speech, and I think Ms Barker would want me to continue to allow for more speakers.

[Paula Barker (in the Chair)]

It is entirely up to you.

[Damian Hinds]

In that case, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Liam Conlon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what has not been conducive to education and preparing children for the best start in life, as I have heard from primary school teachers across my constituency, is the decimation of Sure Start, which provided children with the best start in life?

[Damian Hinds]

I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman asked me about that, because it is one of the great slogans of his party. One of my favourite statistics, however—people can look it up; it is available in an official publication—is that there were more children’s centres open in this country when I was Secretary of State for Education than in any year that Tony Blair was Prime Minister. The fact is that from 2008 to 2010, under Gordon Brown, there was a massive explosion in the number of things called a “Sure Start centre”. Basically, people could go to any old building, stick a sign on it that said “Sure Start” with a rainbow, and that became a Sure Start centre.

The Education Committee, which is a non-partisan Committee of this House, conducted an inquiry in about 2011 or 2012 looking at Sure Start. We tried in chapter one to define what a Sure Start centre was, but we could not, because there was no actual design. One Sure Start centre that we visited had no children at all in it; some centres were fully fledged nurseries, family centres—you name it. There is very important work to be done with family hubs and other programmes. When we were in government, we made a huge increase in entitlements to early years education and childcare, which was a good thing to do.

Ms Barker, I said that I would finish shortly, and I will. I say to Ministers that they should please come back with a Bill that can achieve widespread support, but that does not include these damaging measures that will undermine and harm education and opportunity.

17:17

[John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today, Ms Barker.

Years of austerity have stripped out much of the vital support that young families once received through—dare I say it?—Sure Start. The number of children in care has risen by 28%, the number of children in residential care homes has more than doubled, and 4 million children are living in poverty. I have been to many schools where teachers and staff bring in their own food; we know they are spending their own money to feed children in the school. It is against that backdrop that the Government are looking to pass the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

Having been a foster carer for 25 years, a member of an adoption panel for a decade and the lead member of a tier 1 local authority, I recognise many of the problems that the Bill is trying to address and I fully support the Government’s determination to protect children. I will concentrate on just a few aspects of the Bill today.

Rather than school staff having to put their hands in their pockets to feed children, we are rolling out free breakfast clubs. Of course, they will help with the cost of living by saving parents up to £450 a year and by ensuring that children get a good start to the day. Having visited a couple of our pilot schemes, I can also say that they seem to reduce the traffic chaos outside schools, as there is a steadier arrival of children at school throughout the morning.

Over the coming years, local authorities will have to create more specialist places to address SEND pressures. At the moment, far too many children are being sent to high-cost private provision. The Bill enables local authorities to respond to this issue by being able—once again—to build new schools and run them themselves.

As I have said already, the number of children in care has increased by nearly a third and the number of children living in residential care has more than doubled. The cost pressure of dealing with that has almost broken many local authorities, because there are nowhere near enough local authority places to accommodate such increases, so the majority of those children end up in high-cost residential placements. We know that excess profits have been made: in 2022, the largest 20 providers of children’s residential placements made over £300 million in profit, all off the back of the taxpayer. The Bill introduces financial oversight of the costs of residential care and independent fostering agencies. We must be assured that the state is not being ripped off.

When those children—an increased number—have left residential care, they are going to need support. The Bill provides for the nationwide roll-out of the Staying Close programme, which increases the support for care leavers to find and stay in accommodation and get on a work-related path.

I appreciate that some parents worry that creating a register of home educated children will interfere with their ability to choose how they educate their child. It is therefore important to stress that the overwhelming majority of parents who home school do so with the best interests of the child at heart: there are children who currently cannot cope in a school environment; there are children who want to be in school, but there is currently no school that can meet their needs; and there are parents who simply feel that educating at home is in the child’s best interests.

[Gideon Amos]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in return for those extra controls, the Government or the Bill should offer some kind of support to home educating families?

[John Whitby]

I welcome support for all children, but I am trying to make the point that there is no negative judgment here. I say to those parents, “If you are doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear.” I have also heard the Secretary of State say that privately and publicly.

Unfortunately, though, there are people—although very few in number—who, when they start to be asked difficult questions by the authorities, move school, move house or take their child out of school to avoid scrutiny. It is only right that local authorities should be allowed to refuse home education for a child who is subject to a child protection plan or going through section 47 action. We need to know where children are and we need to keep them safe. There is no bigger reason to be in politics than to protect, safeguard and support our most vulnerable children. That is why I, for one, am here.

17:22

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today, Ms Barker. I thank the Petitions Committee for granting this important debate. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for so ably opening the debate. I pay tribute to the approximately 166,500 people who have signed this petition, including the 184 in my constituency.

There is much in this Bill that many of us can agree on, especially in part 1. During its passage there was cross-party support for the measures in part 1 to ensure that the Government go further in safeguarding and promoting the wellbeing of our children. Part 1 also includes the proposals for a single unique identifier, and I say to hon. Members concerned about it that I do not think it is the precursor to digital ID for our children. If hon. Members look at Professor Jay’s report of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, one of the biggest issues in the system—as I heard when I met her earlier this year—is the lack of data sharing between different service providers, such as health, the police and social services.

Some of the young women and girls who were victims of grooming gangs across the country were regularly turning up in hospitals with sexually transmitted diseases, but that data was not being married up with what the police and social services were seeing. If data had been better shared, those issues might have been picked up. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health strongly supports a single unique identifier for the same reason.

I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) that there are concerns about data sharing, data security and privacy that need to be tackled, and they were explored in detail in the Bill Committee, particularly by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). Whether it is the NHS number or a different single unique identifier, however, it is an important provision for safeguarding our children and ensuring that we can better research their needs and commission services to meet them.

As a number of Members have mentioned, part 2 of the Bill feels a bit muddled, particularly the clauses that deal with academies, and in a number of cases it puts the cart before the horse. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire looks back at the last decade of Conservative Governments with rose-tinted glasses, but I gently remind him—

[Damian Hinds]

David Laws!

[Munira Wilson]

David Laws was not in government for the last decade of Conservative Governments; he was there for the first five years and he did some excellent things, not least introducing the pupil premium. I would say, however, that Conservative Governments left us with crumbling schools that are unable to hire specialist teachers, a crisis in special educational needs provision, and a huge problem with persistent absence.

Given those major issues in our education system, I am not quite sure why the Government have chosen to tinker with academies and governance arrangements as their priority for education policy, when there is limited evidence to suggest that a mixed economy of governance arrangements in our school system is posing a major problem. With the promised schools White Paper hopefully being revealed in the new year, although I think it has been delayed twice already, there is a question as to whether part 2 of the Bill was somewhat premature. I am increasingly wondering whether the Government feel the same way, given that the Bill keeps being delayed in the other place. By the time the Bill returns to the House of Commons, it will have been well over a year since it was first introduced.

When the Bill Committee consulted education leaders in January, the one strong message that came through was about how the Government went about drafting part 2 of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross set out, it was done with limited consultation and showed a lack of coherent vision for the school system; there was no White Paper and no consultation of those on the frontline or in leadership positions across the sector.

That lack of coherent vision and joined-up thinking seems to be a recurring theme for this Labour Government. They introduced free breakfast clubs, but they are not funding them properly. They have capped the number of school uniform items to three, but that will actually risk further inflating prices for hard-pressed families. They have proposed broadening the curriculum, which is something we welcome, and the Bill will make that statutory for all academies, but they have failed to set out the funds or a plan to recruit the necessary teachers to deliver it. During the Bill’s passage, they voted against Liberal Democrat proposals to widen eligibility for free school meals, but they subsequently decided to copy the policy and announced that they will introduce it next year.

Throughout the passage of the Bill, the Liberal Democrats have sought to engage constructively with the Government by tabling amendments and new clauses that aim to improve the Bill and to address some of the concerns raised by the petition that we are discussing today. Given that the Government have already copied at least one of our policies, I hope that the new Minister, who is here today, might listen to some other good ideas in my speech and in the other place.

There is a real fear that this legislation, which is seeking to safeguard children who go missing from education, will over-police home educators, most of whom are doing a great job. I have been very clear at every stage of the Bill—I think there was cross-party support for this—that the Liberal Democrats strongly support having a register of children not in school to ensure that vulnerable children do not simply disappear from the system. We also strongly support the right of parents to choose to home educate, where that is the best option for their child.

In oral evidence to the Bill Committee, however, even the Association of Directors of Children’s Services was circumspect about the vast amount of detailed information that the Bill will expect home educating parents to supply. That level of detail risks becoming intrusive and unnecessary. Many home educators choose to home educate their children not because they want to but because they feel forced to. There is a crisis in our special needs system, and so much special needs provision just does not meet the needs of those children, forcing many parents to give up work so that they can home educate their child. By virtue of their child’s need, parents tend to be much more flexible in how they home educate, but the very onerous reporting mechanisms will interfere with the flexibility that parents need to provide for their children.

I tabled various amendments to try to pare back the burdensome nature of the register, as set out in the Bill. One amendment called for, at the very least, a review of the register’s impact on home educators to be carried out within six months, to ensure that only reporting requirements that are strictly necessary for safeguarding purposes are retained. We also tabled an amendment that would have removed the requirement for parents and carers of children in special schools to secure local authority consent to home educate. Furthermore, we proposed that home educated children should not be excluded from national examinations because of financial or capacity constraints.

Sadly, the Government voted down all our amendments, but I encourage the new Minister to give serious consideration to relevant amendments tabled in the other place, because we must do more if we genuinely want to extend opportunity to every child. Our SEND system is letting down many children, and it is allowing a number of organisations with bad intentions to exploit the market failure in the system. I am talking about private-equity-run special school providers, which are making exorbitant profits, as they have with children’s homes. They are exploiting the lack of provision to hold local authorities and parents to ransom.

The latest revelation in the Budget is that the Government will absorb the costs of SEND provision from local authorities, and the projected £6 billion black hole only strengthens the need to start capping the profits of private special schools. The Bill already makes provision to cap the profits of the same companies that are running children’s care homes and fostering agencies, so I again ask the Minister to consider introducing the measure so that no child is left waiting because of a lack of resource, given that local authorities are being bled dry.

While I am talking about children being left waiting, I encourage the Minister to look at another Liberal Democrat proposal to automatically enrol every eligible child for free school meals, so that no one misses out on a hot, healthy meal. Durham county council, under its previous Liberal Democrat-led administration, auto-enrolled 2,500 children, whose schools benefited from an additional £3 million in pupil premium funding.

It is not too late for the Minister to improve the Bill, which I do not believe needs to be withdrawn wholesale. Instead, with the help of the other place, it can be amended so that there is a strong foundation to improve safeguarding for our children and strengthen provision for them in our schools.

17:32

[Saqib Bhatti (Meriden and Solihull East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Barker, and to speak in this very important debate. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for his opening remarks, and Michelle Zaher and all 166,498 signatories of this important petition, including 250 of my constituents. The petition calls on the Education Secretary to withdraw the disastrous Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and states:

“We believe the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is poorly drafted and does not stem from robust evidence. We feel the accompanying impact assessments are inadequate and may damage all children’s educational opportunities. We believe the Bill is silent on children’s voice and children’s right to education. We also feel part 2 undermines parental responsibility for education and school leaders from ensuring their educational settings can optimise children’s education and wellbeing.”

I cannot fault that damning verdict, which summarises many of the huge inadequacies that are part of this woeful piece of legislation. I am clear that His Majesty’s official Opposition share no enthusiasm for the parts of this Bill relating to schools in particular. To put our views simply, this legislation will trample over two decades of cross-party consensus that has seen the quality of an English child’s schooling improve at a rate of knots.

It is beyond question that the previous Government drove up school standards across the country, and my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made that point very eloquently. By the time the Conservatives left office in 2024, English schoolchildren were some of the best in the western world at English and maths. Moreover, 90% of our schools were rated good or outstanding, up from 68% when Labour were last in office. It is a record we are fiercely proud of, because those changes have benefited children across the country, have driven up social mobility and have given more young people the chance to succeed. This legacy is of enormous significance, but it is under great threat because of this woeful legislation.

The overwhelming consensus over the past 20 years—started by Tony Blair and improved by Lord Gove and Sir Nick Gibb—has demonstrated the profound benefits of giving schools and local trusts greater autonomy. The political consensus that created free schools, a knowledge-rich curriculum and academisation has brought enormous benefits. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill ends that consensus. It is an act of pure educational vandalism that, tragically, is not backed up by any evidence that suggests it will improve school standards.

In 2024, academies represented 80% of secondary schools and nearly 43% of primary schools. They have been at the heart of the cross-party effort over the past two decades to improve schooling. We know that headteachers are better equipped to design curricula that benefit their students and communities, and they should be empowered to do so. The fact the Government disagree with that, despite an abundance of evidence suggesting otherwise, speaks volumes. The petition challenges this educational vandalism. It makes it clear that the impact assessments are totally inadequate and fail to show how effectively removing academy status will improve school standards.

Of course, the official Opposition are not alone in our objection to the Bill’s provisions to effectively end the academies project. The Confederation of School Trusts is very concerned about the provisions that seek to remove the academy freedoms that have so greatly improved our education system. Even Lord Harris of Haringey, a Labour peer, has raised his concerns. He is on the record as saying that he cannot express his disappointment at what the Government propose in the Bill, and that it will

“undermine everything that so many people have fought so hard to achieve.”

The Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza, who is a former headteacher and the co-founder of the Inspiration multi-academy trust, has criticised the Bill, saying that Ministers are

“legislating against the things we know work in schools”.

As has been alluded to, even Amanda Spielman, a former head of Ofsted, has called on the Education Secretary to abandon her plans

“before the damage is done”.

Does the Minister take seriously those concerns, and the concerns of the 166,498 signatories? What will she do about them?

Before the Education Secretary imposes her union-backed policies on English schoolchildren, I remind Members present about Labour’s record in Wales. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire made an excellent speech in which he highlighted Labour’s track record, which reinforces the importance of the petition we are debating. Children over the border are being let down by Labour-run Wales. Welsh children have been unable to experience the same revolution in school standards that we have seen in England.

The Welsh education system is far behind the rest of the UK in the international league tables. As Onward’s “Devolved to Fail” report makes clear, Wales is a huge outlier. The UK is ranked 14th among OECD countries in the PISA tables, but were Wales to be ranked as an individual country, it would come just above Vietnam, in 34th place. England moved to a rich, knowledge-based curriculum, while Wales continued to use a skills-based one. England introduced academies; Wales resisted and paid the price. Attainment in Welsh schools has stagnated so much that the average Welsh pupil performs only as well as the most disadvantaged pupils in England.

I also want to address the issue of homeschooling, which was mentioned by my hon. Friends the Members for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) and for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas). As a parent, I believe in the liberty of parents to choose the best options for their children, but I also recognise that there is a balance to be struck, especially when it comes to safeguarding. The sad case of Sara Sharif has been raised; I draw the Minister’s attention to the amendment tabled by Baroness Barran in the other place, which states that if there is or has ever been a child protection plan, or if a child is in need, there must be local authority consent for them to be withdrawn from school. Will the Minister share her reflections on that amendment? I trust she is willing to work on a cross-party basis.

I want to put on record my concerns about the proposed three-item cap on children’s school uniform, which is being advanced without due consideration of the harm it could cause to families, schools and businesses. As has been mentioned, it could actually inflate prices. The Government claim that the cap will make schools fairer, but the limit could also put pressure on pupils to wear the latest fashions, which often end up being much more expensive than a uniform. The practicalities are also significant, as has been raised in some of the meetings I have had on the issue, because the cap will cause nightmares for PE teachers and children playing sports. Will the Minister clarify the issues in respect of PE? In addition, the relevant part of the Bill will do significant damage to the specialist schoolwear sector, which has significant concerns.

Let me present some of the constructive steps that the official Opposition have taken to improve the flawed Bill. We have tabled several amendments that are aimed at preventing harm and improving educational outcomes, including in respect of proposals to ban smartphones during the school day; to ensure automatic exclusions for the possession of a knife, for sexual assault or for the assault of a teacher; and to move pupils who are permanently excluded twice out of mainstream settings. Banning smartphones would help to address the behaviour issues we see in schools, including social media-driven knife crime and the impact on attainment.

The Bill needs to be looked at again. There are some areas that the official Opposition can support, but overall, it is a wrecking ball that destroys 20 years of educational consensus and achievement. Today’s petition is therefore extremely important, and I thank all the people who signed it. I hope the Minister can do them justice and reflect on some of the arguments I have made today.

17:40

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for introducing this excellent debate on a landmark Bill. I thank all colleagues for their contributions, and all those in the Public Gallery who have signed the petition, particularly Michelle and Addison, who have been mentioned by my colleagues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper) reminded us at the start of this debate—quite nicely, I thought—that we all share the same ambition to try to ensure that our children are safe and get the very best start in life. I thought that was an excellent way to start this debate.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) told us that home educators are often misunderstood. I wanted to start by referencing that directly, because he is right that the vast majority of home educators are doing it in the best interests of their children—the Government and I absolutely recognise that home educators are doing it with the best interests of their children in mind—but he explicitly stated that we are taking away that option, and he was wrong to do so. That is categorically not what this Government are doing.

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon) shared his personal experience. As the Minister responsible for bullying and behaviour, I would say he is also right to say that he should not wind up the year below! He rightly spoke about the importance of supporting children before those settings, using his own experience powerfully. I thank all the staff of the hospital schools he mentioned today—Royal London hospital, Bethlem Royal hospital, King’s College hospital and the PRUH. I would also like to give him the reassurance he seeks on the risk of bureaucratic, burdensome reporting requirements on home educating families. The Government are determined to ensure that there are no unduly burdensome requirements on home educating families.

Later in my speech, I will address some of the more substantive points that have been made in the debate. As we have heard, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a wide-ranging piece of legislation, but at its heart, it is about protecting children and ensuring that they have the best possible education. It is also rightly described as the biggest single piece of safeguarding legislation for a generation. As we have heard today, the measures in the Bill cover four broad areas: easing the cost of living for parents, supporting children in care, keeping all children safe, and driving the best possible standards in our schools. I will expand on each of those points in turn.

First, the Bill puts more money back into parents’ pockets at a time when all of us are feeling the impact of the cost of living. Introducing free breakfast clubs in all state-funded primary schools will save families up to £450 a year and drive improvements in behaviour and attendance. The claim made by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) that we are not properly funding breakfast clubs is inaccurate. We have deliberately adopted a test-and-learn approach with breakfast clubs. In the first phase, we learned from schools, and in the second phase we have increased funding for breakfast clubs for the average school by 28%.

[Damian Hinds]

As a simple, comparative piece of maths, if the Minister is saying that breakfast clubs will save families £450 a year, how much money is the Department for Education providing to the school to provide that breakfast?

[Olivia Bailey]

As the right hon. Gentleman will be well aware, the breakfast club represents 30 minutes of free childcare, as well as a healthy breakfast. That is how we calculated the estimated cost savings for families. We have also increased the funding for schools, as I have just said, having learned from headteachers and schools, which has been widely welcomed.

We are also limiting the number of branded uniform items a school can require, a measure that could save some parents up to £50 per child during the back-to-school shop. Together, these measures could save up to £500 per child per year. The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) asked about school uniform costs. I would like to take the opportunity to clarify this point: we are introducing the policy deliberately because we need to reduce costly expectations on parents in this challenging time for the cost of living. There will be three branded items that schools may use as they see fit. The hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East mentioned sports clubs, and the Government are taking a common-sense approach here. If, for example, a school wants to loan some pupils its uniform or whatever it may be, it will be able to do that, as long as it is not a requirement for the child to wear it. We are taking a common-sense approach here, but it is important that we set out clearly that there are three branded items.

[Munira Wilson]

I strongly support the Government’s objective of driving down the cost of branded uniform for families. Will the Minister look at the proposals that the Liberal Democrat tabled in Committee and on Report? We suggested that, instead of capping the number of items, we cap the cost, which would then be reviewed in line with inflation every year. That way, we would help to bring down the cost, because if we reduce the number of items, suppliers will just push up their prices, as they are selling fewer items. They might charge £100 for a blazer instead of £50. Our proposal would free schools to set their own uniform policy and let the market do its job by driving down prices for families.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Lady for her positive and constructive engagement on this question. Of course, the Government carefully considered the amendments that were tabled. My concern with her proposal would be the bureaucratic burden on schools. The simplicity of requiring three branded items can help us in that regard.

[Saqib Bhatti]

I am not trying to catch the Minister out here; perhaps she could write to me afterwards for clarity. She talks about a common-sense approach, but we are making it concrete in legislation. On the requirement for three branded items, would the school be in breach? Would the parents be in breach? What happens in that situation?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am very happy to write to the hon. Gentleman and set that out in detail, but let me try again. There will be a requirement for three branded items. That is the maximum that schools can require. They can choose where they would like to allocate those branded items, whether that be in the main school uniform or for PE. If a child joined a football team, for which the kit is not part of the three required items, then as long as the school does not require the pupil to wear that kit, they may, for example, provide a loan or say that they could buy it. I hope that clarifies the point.

[Damian Hinds]

The Minister says that the limit is three items, but actually, the limit is three in primary school, while I believe it is four in secondary school—she will correct me if I am wrong—so long as the fourth is a tie. Can she tell me for what reason a fourth is not allowed in primary school, if the fourth is a tie?

[Olivia Bailey]

I shall write to the right hon. Gentleman in extreme clarity on that point.

Secondly, the Bill’s children’s social care reforms will shift the system away from increasing reliance on residential provision, towards stronger early intervention and prevention. We want to keep families together as much as possible and, where children cannot remain at home, we want to support them to live with kinship carers or in foster families. Children’s social care has the power to transform the lives of some of our most vulnerable children, and children in care deserve a childhood filled with love, support and access to the opportunities that will set them up for a successful life, but the system is not delivering that ambition. Through the measures introduced by this legislation, we will champion family group decision making, fix the broken care market, create powers to introduce a profit cap for providers, and provide a staying close support package to address the cliff edge that young people face when they leave care.

Thirdly, it bears repeating that this is the biggest piece of safeguarding legislation in a generation, delivering robust action to keep children safe from harm. The Government have challenged themselves, and will continue to do so, to stop children falling through the gaps by ensuring legislation introducing an information sharing duty and provision for a single unique identifier, and ensuring that implementation is as watertight as possible.

[Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I have come along to genuinely learn more about this and to ask a question about the single identifier raised by my constituent Catherine. She points out that the General Medical Council, in particular, has advised against using the NHS number to supply an effective identifier and that it should not be used outside the Department of Health and Social Care. Does the Minister recognise people’s concerns about a possible loss of data? Does she accept that we do not want to be introducing a form of digital ID that might persist after the children become adults?

[Olivia Bailey]

I take everything that the right hon. Gentleman has said on board. I will come to the topics he raises in more detail in my speech.

The Government will also introduce new multi-agency child protection teams in every local area to make sure that agencies work together to protect children from harm as quickly as possible. We will also require local authorities to maintain registers of children not in school in their areas, such as home educated children and children missing education. Parents of home educated children will have a duty to provide information about them. That will help to ensure that local authorities can identify all children not in school living in their areas so that they can fulfil their existing duties to ensure that those children are receiving a safe, suitable education.

The Bill also introduces provisions requiring local authority consent for the most vulnerable children, or those with the highest needs, to be home educated. That includes those subject to child protection inquiries or plans and those enrolled in special schools. Home education can mean that children sometimes slip under the radar of services that are there to support them, so it is essential for those children that an additional check is undertaken before they are removed from school. That will help to ensure that home education is in their best interests and that they receive a suitable education.

[Mr Forster]

As the Minister will have heard, I am a bit more supportive of the Bill due to safeguarding concerns based on what happened with Sara Sharif in my constituency of Woking. However, I would also highlight the concerns about the way that Surrey county council failed to protect Sara. Although I am mindful of safeguarding concerns, does the Minister agree that the Government need to properly hold local authorities accountable and resource them to ensure that they can properly protect children? They are not doing that at the moment.

[Olivia Bailey]

I thank the hon. Member for his advocacy on this issue after the terrible events that led to Sara Sharif’s death. He has been doing an excellent job of that. I very much agree that the findings in the report on that case are appalling. The Government are taking them extremely seriously and will continue to work with local authorities to make sure that children are kept safe.

Lastly, the Bill helps to ensure consistently high standards in our schools. If I may quote the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) , we are indeed “striving for academic excellence”. Through our reforms to the academy system, we will give every family the certainty that they will be able to access a good local school for their child, delivered through excellent teaching and leadership, a rich, broad and high-quality curriculum and a pay floor for all teachers. We are designing a school system that supports and challenges all schools, allowing them to collaborate, innovate and drive excellence.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross talked about the issues raised by Michelle Zaher and the hon. Member for Twickenham talked about evidence. The Bill is built on a robust evidence base that the Government have taken time and care to produce. The children’s social care measures in the Bill build on extensive consultation over the last few years in response to three reviews calling for a transformation of children’s social care.

Despite the many strengths and practices that have driven improvements across our school system, including transformational changes in phonics, professional development and strong multi-academy trusts empowering schools to collaborate and innovate, the fact is that the school system is not working well enough for all children. Standards vary widely and there is a stark contrast between the experiences of children in the best and worst schools.

The hon. Member for Bromsgrove talked about the children not in school register. Every child has the right to a safe and suitable education, whether they are educated at school or otherwise. We recognise that parents have a right to home educate and we know that many parents work hard to provide a suitable education for their children. Local authorities must identify children who are not in school and are not receiving a suitable education, but that existing duty is undermined by parents having no obligation to inform their local authority that they are home educating.

Statutory registers of children not in school, along with duties on parents and out-of-school education providers to provide information, will support local authorities to identify all children not in school in their area, including those not receiving a suitable education or at risk of harm, and to take action where that is the case. This was raised earlier, but crucially, parents will also be able to access tailored advice and information from local authorities, thanks to the new duty on local authorities to provide support should parents request it.

The hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) raised concerns about the single unique identifier and the information-sharing duty. For too long, poor information sharing has been identified as a contributory factor to serious child safeguarding incidents. As outlined in “Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive”, we are taking two important steps in the Bill to improve how services share information. First, we are introducing an identifier system for children to end misconceptions about the legal barriers to sharing information for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. Alongside that, we are piloting the use of the NHS number as a SUI, starting with Wigan local authority. The pilot phase allows us to test the approach in practice, understand the implications fully and determine whether it should be mandated via future regulations.

[Andrew Cooper]

The right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis) raised concerns about the General Medical Council’s view on this. Is the Minister aware that the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is advocating the use of the NHS number? Is she therefore aware that there is a divergence of views in the medical community on this point?

[Olivia Bailey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that useful contribution to the debate.

I am conscious of time, so I will conclude by once again thanking the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross for presenting this debate. I also thank Members across the Chamber for an excellent debate and for their thoughtful contributions this afternoon. I would like to recognise the tireless efforts of schools, local authorities and the many organisations that champion children’s wellbeing every day. The Bill will put more money back into the pockets of parents, reform our children’s social care system, safeguard vulnerable children and drive rising standards in all our schools. As we continue the passage of this transformational Bill, our focus will continue to be on breaking down the barriers to opportunity and ensuring that every child is safe.

17:57

[Jamie Stone]

As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said, it has been a good debate, although perhaps a little sparkier than I had first anticipated. As Chairman of the Petitions Committee, I must remain resolutely impartial in these matters. If we say that the overall impression of the Bill at this stage has some way to go, it is like the proverbial curate’s egg—good in parts.

I particularly thank Michelle Zaher, who must take considerable satisfaction from the fact that the petition that she launched, with all the many people who support her, has achieved such a far-ranging and broad debate. The petitioners can take pleasure from how it has worked. That is how it works in the Petitions Committee: the petition has instigated a response from the Government. That is how we deal with petitions in this place. Ms Barker, thank you for chairing this debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered e-petition 722377 relating to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.