Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Shephard of Northwold Excerpts
Thursday 1st May 2025

(2 days, 19 hours ago)

Lords Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Shephard of Northwold Portrait Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
- View Speech - Hansard - -

My Lords, there is much to commend in the Bill, not least because it seeks—as did the last Government—to strengthen collaboration between education and social services for the benefit of the life chances of all our children.

However, it is regrettable that, while the Government claim their enthusiasm for driving up school standards, the Bill attacks the very freedoms of academies which have achieved just that since their introduction. In that time, as has already been said, the UK has moved from 21st to seventh in international league tables in maths, and in science from ninth to seventh. In the many cases where academies have replaced failing schools, they have given fresh hope to children, often in disadvantaged areas.

I also question the wisdom of loading local authorities with so many obligations to set up new bodies and practices at this very moment when they themselves are facing massive change and uncertainty through the Government’s plans for devolution. Those changes will of course be necessary; it is just the timing that seems to be a bit questionable, especially as some of them are due to come into force within two months after the Act is passed, according to the Library. Will devolution be fully in place in two months? Will we know which local authorities still exist in their present form and which do not in a completely different framework? I do not think so, and it would be helpful if the Minister could comment on this point in her wind-up. It seems to me that there is something of a mismatch of expectation at this stage.

I welcome the planned involvement of Ofsted in unregistered and therefore illegal independent schools, and, importantly, private providers, including those for SEND pupils. I also welcome—very guardedly, because it is an extremely sensitive area—the introduction of a register of children not in school. Many of those educating their children at home, which can include SEND pupils, understandably regard the measure as intolerable intrusion. Perhaps it might be better if it applied only to children already known to social services, but views on this will emerge as the Bill goes through this House.

The noble Lord, Lord Storey, has done very important work on this with his Private Member’s Bill and his concern about the case of Sara Sharif. I have been marked for life by the story I will recount to this House, in my time as an MP, of an egregious case in 2001 which ended in the manslaughter of Lauren Wright, aged eight, at the hands of her father and stepmother. If the Norfolk education and social services had visited the family home, the death of Lauren would have been prevented. The Labour Government of the time refused a public inquiry.

The introduction of school attendance orders should be helpful, especially in the wake of the pandemic and the new world of working from home. Amid worrying reports of school heads feeling powerless to insist on attendance, heads and teachers should be able to feel that they are supported by the provisions of the law and also of the Bill.

A flippant point: I have noticed in my lifelong involvement in education that many, including politicians, frequently pronounce on what should and should not be achieved in the classroom, while all too frequently forgetting that they are not in the classroom and heads and teachers are. Those heads and teachers need the confidence and support of a legal framework within which to work.

Many have commented on the expertise within this House. I believe that these issues can be debated robustly and knowledgeably, with national expertise, to the benefit of all our children, and I look forward to the debates that are to come.