Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)
Damian Hinds ExcerptsThursday 23rd January 2025
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 View all Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 January 2025 - (23 Jan 2025)
Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to amendment 49 regarding family group decision making at the point of family reunification.
Reunification—the process of returning a child in care to their family—is the most common route by which children leave care, accounting for 27% of all children who left care in 2023. It is also one of the most sensitive and significant transitions a child can experience. When done well, it can offer children stability, security and permanence at home with their family, but too often the reunifications fail. In fact, one in three children who return home then re-enter the care system, so thousands of children are enduring yet more displacement, disrupted attachments, instability and broken trust.
The human cost of those failed reunifications is immeasurable, but the financial cost is also stark. Failed reunifications cost the public purse £370 million annually—money that would be better spent supporting families in the first place. Research tells us that too many reunifications break down because families do not receive the support that they need to make that process successful, tut there is no national strategy for supporting reunifications. Support across the country is inconsistent, and alarmingly, 78% of authorities report that the support that they offer is inadequate—the authorities report that themselves.
Amendment 49 provides a clear, practical, evidence-based solution—effectively a mirror to the Government’s clause 1. The amendment would require local authorities to offer family group decision making no later than one month after the discharge of a care order for the purpose of family reunification. Of course, in practice, it is envisaged that the family group decision-making process would be offered before the child returns home to support that return.
As the Committee has already heard and discussed, family group decision making is a powerful tool. It brings families together to identify solutions, develop a plan and build a network of support around the child. It can empower families to take ownership of the challenges that they face, and foster collaborative work with professionals that promotes the safety and wellbeing of the child while also amplifying the child’s voice. My argument is that that is as important towards the end of a care process as it is at the beginning.
Family group decision making is well established and recognised as best practice by professionals. We already have clear evidence on its effectiveness, and we are awaiting more, as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said. However, the lack of a statutory duty to offer it has led to patchy practice across the country. One third of local authorities do not offer family group decision making at all during reunification. Amendment 49 addresses that gap. It would ensure that every family in England has the opportunity to benefit from that approach. The requirement in the amendment is to offer it; it does not impose any sort of time limit.
Some Members might worry about the practicalities or cost of introducing the duty, but as I have already explained, the breakdown of family reunification is an incredibly costly process, both financially and for the child’s welfare. The amendment is a financial cost-saving measure as well as a child-centred one. Research shows that providing support to meet a family’s needs during reunification costs just £7,857 per child. By contrast, the cost of a single reunification breakdown is £105,000. Amendment 49 would be
The amendment is practical and allows for professional judgment, recognising that every family is different. Where a meeting is not in a child’s best interests, the local authority would be exempt from the duty to make the offer, and that flexibility ensures that the needs of children always come first. The amendment also complements existing provisions in the Bill. It effectively mirrors the duty to offer family group decision making before care proceedings, and therefore offers a coherent support framework at both ends of the care process—effectively bookending it. It brings much-needed consistency to a fragmented system.
With more children in care than ever before, as we have noted, and with children’s services under immense strain, the amendment represents a real opportunity. By embedding family group decision making we can enable more families to stay together, reduce the number of children returning to care, which is an incredibly damaging process, and relieve pressure on an overstretched system, all while delivering better outcomes for those children. This is about fairness, consistency, investing in what works and ensuring that all reunifying families, not just some, are given the help they need. It is about recognising the importance of successful reunification within the care process. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the proposal and the other questions raised this morning.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Of course I agree with and entirely support the spirit of what the Government are doing. It forms part of the strand of development intended in the “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy; across the House, we share similar motivations on all these matters.
On the comments from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on reunification and amendment 49, I do not think an amendment to a Bill is the moment to introduce such a thing, but I am sure that in their continuing work, Ministers and officials will look at how the reunification process can be improved for all the reasons that she rightly gave.
I have a couple of questions on the inclusion of children in meetings, which is relevant to clause stand part and to amendment 36. My first question is: what guidance will accompany the new provisions? In some cases it will be obvious that a child should not be present, but beyond that it is perhaps difficult to generalise. Of course we trust professional judgment, but I wonder about the extent to which further guidance may be useful. I am thinking particularly of children with learning disabilities, who sometimes feel that things are done that affect their lives in a big way and they have less of a say than other children, because somebody has made that judgment when perhaps they did not need to. Secondly—this is a minor point in the grand scheme of things—I wonder why the legislation and the explanatory notes do not say that a child may be present for part of the meeting. It may be appropriate to have part of it with the child and part of it without them.
The Chair
I call the Minister. [Interruption.] I call Tom Hayes. It is helpful for the Chair if you rise in your place if you intend to speak.
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)
Damian Hinds Excerpts(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Amanda Martin
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: Always. I would not come to Parliament and do anything else.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Q
Dame Rachel de Souza: We have always been worried, and successive Governments have felt that maybe there was a need for this—I think you, Damian, did the first consultation on it a long while back—and there has been a debate going on about whether we should have a register of children not in school. I am delighted to see it in this Bill.
The number of children missing from education is getting worse. We know that post-lockdown, there was a massive rise in children persistently absent and severely absent, and a massive number of children missing from education. I have made it my business to look into who those children are; I did that in 2021. We have three pots of children: children with special educational needs who went off in 2019 and have not come back; children with mental health/anxiety concerns; and children who really have just gone, who are at risk of CSE. We really need a register.
We have another problem, which I have investigated. I looked at last year’s roll and compared it with this year’s roll, and we found at least 13,000 children who we could not account for, plus another 10,000 who were CME. They had gone to be home-educated, because they did not feel that their needs were being met in school and they felt that they were driven to that. We absolutely need a home register.
The Chair
We will have one final, brief question—hopefully with a brief answer—from Darren Paffey.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Q
Sir Martyn Oliver: Actually, the education inspection framework that we currently use significantly reduced the deviation of academies because it set out the need to carry out a broad and balanced curriculum. That was interesting, because it was not what was set out in the articles of the individual academies and those freedoms, so Ofsted has been in tension with those articles for quite some time.
The Bill puts everyone on the same footing. I think that there is good in that, but speaking as HMCI, as a previous chief executive of one of the largest trusts, as a headteacher and as a teacher for 30 years, I would always want to give headteachers the flexibility to do what is right for their children, as long as it ultimately delivers the broad and balanced education that you would expect all children to receive.
Damian Hinds
Q
Sir Martyn Oliver: The most typical reason is a focus on the core standards of English and mathematics. We often see that, but I am afraid that in some cases it goes beyond improving core standards: there are some that hot-house to the exclusion of being broad and balanced. It is important that a headteacher always retains a broad overview of a child to make sure that children get the core standards for their future, but also a well-rounded education in total.
Damian Hinds
Q
Lee Owston: That would currently come under our quality-of-education judgment. It would not be seen as good if we could not, through the evidence we collect, determine a broad and balanced curriculum for all children.
Sir Martyn Oliver: I am about to consult on a measure that will allow more nuance and better identify that.
Damian Hinds
Q
Sir Martyn Oliver: We have been involved in that for quite some time, even with previous Governments, whether it was about online education or all these aspects. I think that all our intelligence, for years, has carried forward into this Bill.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Sir Martyn Oliver: To answer your last question first, absolutely: it is a significant improvement on our powers. Since 2016, we have carried out almost 1,400 criminal investigations into almost 1,300 unique unregistered settings. Not all investigations lead to an on-site inspection. We have carried out almost 900 on-site inspections and issued 200 warnings, meaning that in over one fifth of on-site inspections, we were able to secure sufficient evidence that a crime was being committed, despite our limited powers at that point and under the current legislation. We have worked with the Crown Prosecution Service to successfully prosecute seven cases, including a total of 21 individual convictions.
The new powers will significantly improve our ability to do that, and the speed at which we can do it. It is very difficult to carry out those investigations. It is incredibly resource-reliant and takes significant time—regularly between 12 and 24 months—if we can get it to that position. The changes will help to address those loopholes in the law, but we think that there are some areas for improvement. As I have said, the need to get a warrant in all cases will be incredibly bureaucratic and expensive for Ofsted. Obviously we want to do it with care—we do not want to break into people’s homes and inspect them—but on commercial premises we think that there is a more proportionate response, which will reduce bureaucracy, reduce the cost to Ofsted and allow us to focus on keeping children safe.
Damian Hinds
Q
Mark Russell: That is a very good question. I understand why the Government have taken the decision they have; I really do. Particularly in a primary school, you want to be as universal as possible.
Damian Hinds
It would be the whole school, as it is now under the school breakfast programme.
Mark Russell: Yes. With limited resources, I would probably have targeted it more at those most in need and included secondary school children in that mix. We will continue talking to the Government about secondary school children; I am deeply concerned about them as well.
Damian Hinds
Q
Lynn Perry: I have not yet seen any change on the ground. We deliver a number of mental health support teams in schools. We consider them to be an effective way to reach children and young people at an early stage, and to intervene before they reach crisis point. There are often relationships of trust. Quite frequently, people know their children very well within the school context and can manage that supported and enabled engagement with provision in schools. I have not seen anything that has translated into a direct change in practice at this juncture, but we think it is a really important area of work. We think that there is potential to do more in that space, by looking at what might be described as an MHST+ type model.
Lizzi Collinge
Q
Paul Barber: We are talking about oversubscription criteria, which only kick in when there are insufficient places to satisfy parental demand. In those cases, we would wish to continue to give priority to Catholic families.
Nigel Genders: Again, Paul has identified a difference in policy area between the two Churches in this space. My answer is the same as previously: that would not be the case for the Church of England. We are much more interested in some of the other parts of the previous consultation, which have not come through yet—around special schools and the designation of special schools with religious designation. The Church of England would love to be able to provide special schools in those circumstances. In the provision of new schools, whether voluntary-aided free schools or voluntary controlled, we would not be looking to do 100%.
Paul Barber: We would also welcome having more. We already have special schools, but we would like to have more.
The Chair
Order. Is that relevant to the Bill? As long as you relate it directly to the Bill—
Damian Hinds
I promise you, Mr Betts, that it will be relevant to the Bill. As Nigel I think rather charitably said, his schools would be “asked” to sign up to something without knowing what the something is—but I do not think they are going to be asked, Nigel; I think they are going to be told. You also said that we hope—I include myself in that “we”—that it will be a broad framework, which will allow everyone to do their distinctive thing, as they do today. That is a hope, but we do not know. For example, there is a movement to rebrand religious education as “world views”—does that make you nervous?
Nigel Genders: I am in danger of getting into the curriculum discussion, rather than the—
Damian Hinds
I will, absolutely. Do you feel any nervousness or concern about the removal of the safety valve that says academy schools can deviate from the national curriculum?
Nigel Genders: With all the discussion about the curriculum and the national curriculum, RE is part of the core curriculum; it is not in the national curriculum at the moment. Levelling the playing field up or whichever way you want to do it, there is a requirement to teach a breadth of RE within that curriculum as a core subject, but it is not defined in the national curriculum. We are happy with that position but, either way, the important thing is that we enable a broad, rich and holistic curriculum to develop—for the reason of behaviour that Neil mentioned as much as anything. We want children to enjoy coming to school, and the curriculum is a fundamental part of that.
Paul Barber: Maintained schools have to follow the national curriculum, and over half of ours are maintained schools currently. We have a very rich religious education curriculum. Recently, we published a curriculum directory, which I can share with the Committee if interested. Our position on RE is also well set out in our evidence to the curriculum and assessment review—again, we can give copies to the Committee if that would be helpful.
Damian Hinds
Q
Nigel Genders: I think our point is that we would like to see that flexibility within the national curriculum available to everybody. I am very much in favour of levelling up, as long as the curriculum gives the space to do that.
Damian Hinds
Q
Paul Barber: From what I can see, I do not think it is any more or less likely. In terms of the directive power, my understanding is that the position in VA schools remains the same, and that it is academies that will have a direction-making power similar to that which already applies to voluntary aided schools.
Damian Hinds
Q
Paul Barber: Sorry; I misunderstood. You are talking about the restrictions on schools unilaterally changing their published admission number. Our position on that is that it is because of this relationship between admissions and the planning of school places, which must be planned in some way. Our diocese has a long track record of decades of working with its local authorities and with the diocese in the Church of England to work out what is required in the future, and looking forward for places and planning that. Having some kind of regulation of schools’ published admissions numbers is quite helpful in ensuring that that works smoothly, because if you plan it and three schools then arbitrarily decide to increase their published admission number, that creates some real problems locally with place planning.
Nigel Genders: We would agree with that. Not to rehearse all that Paul has just said, but a further point is that when it comes to resourcing local authorities to carry out their role in the allocation and direction of schools to take particular pupils, we are really keen to see that done in a way that makes fairness the arbitrating factor to ensure that there is a real fairness of approach. The collaboration between maintained and academy and diocese and local authority very much needs to happen, and we would welcome that.
Neil O'Brien
Q
Munira Wilson
Q
Leora Cruddas: That is a question that we have raised. We hope that the curriculum and assessment review will address that issue, but it is also for the Government to address it, because the review will look at the high level of curriculum and assessment, whereas it is the Government who have laid the legislation. We have raised that as a specific issue, and we have also raised the issue about special schools and what it means for them.
Damian Hinds
Q
Leora Cruddas: I am an advocate for academy trusts, because of the clarity of accountability arrangements, the strong strategic governance, and the powerful, purposeful partnership between schools in a single legal entity. If a school is part of an academy trust and it is perhaps not improving or the quality of education is not as strong as it could be, and a conversation is had with that school, the school cannot walk away. The accountability for school improvement—the partnership mindset—is hardwired into the trust sector.
For the last 20 years, spanning all political Administrat-ions, trusts have been building their school improvement capacity. Again, I would cite Northern Education Trust, which has an incredibly strong model of school improvement, and that is how it has turned around failing schools in the way that it has. The school improvement capacity sits in the trust sector.
That is not to cast aspersions on local authorities—I was a director of education in local government for most of my professional life—but over time, as local authority settlements have decreased and local authorities have reduced their school improvement capacity, so we have seen the rise of school improvement capacity in the trust sector. That is not true everywhere—Camden Learning, for example, has a very powerful model of school improvement—but overall, we see that the capacity for school improvement is in the trust sector.
Damian Hinds
Q
Jane Wilson: We have breakfast clubs in our primary schools and our secondary schools that children can attend. Most of those are free or charge a very small amount for the food and care that the children receive. It is an offer that we have across the trust. In terms of attendance, it enables children, often from very disadvantaged backgrounds, to have a very settled start to the day and receive care and attention before the school day starts. It means that once the school day does start, learning can become the priority. So they play a fundamental role in improving attendance in our academies, particularly for those disadvantaged children—and we serve communities of real disadvantage. We have roughly twice as many disadvantaged students as the number seen nationally across our trust.
Damian Hinds
Very briefly, Rebecca, what role does uniform play in identity for your school and the sense of belonging?
Rebecca Leek: I think that uniform does play a role. It is sometimes a really useful mechanism to improve a school—to sort it out—as well. I do have some further things to say about uniform, if there is time and anyone wants to ask me about it.
Damian Hinds
Q
Rebecca Leek: School uniform is generally very affordable. You are asking a primary school, so we do not have blazers, but certainly it is very affordable. It has never been an issue. We also give away free uniform. I think there are problems in the Bill with the uniform wording.
Darren Paffey
Q
Rebecca Leek: I do believe that a broad entitlement for children is really important. What I am concerned about is that, first, we do not know what will be in the national curriculum and, secondly, schools sometimes need a little bit of flexibility to maybe not do a couple of subjects because they are addressing something that has happened within their school community over a couple of years or months or a term.
I had a school in south Essex in a trust that I led where we needed to reduce the curriculum for a little while. It was post covid. You may say, “Well, that was covid,” but we do not what is coming. I needed to work with some children in key stage 2 on a slightly narrower curriculum to really help them with their maths and English so that they would be able to access secondary school. That is what we decided to do, and it was an academy school, so I had the freedom to address that. I think that it was a moral duty for me to make sure that they got those core skills, so that they would be able to access a broad and balanced curriculum in the secondary.
I am just very worried about there being these kind of concrete bricks. If there is permissiveness and agility within it, then that is fine. I do agree with the concept of an entitlement for children to a broad and balanced curriculum.
Catherine Atkinson
Q
Catherine McKinnell: Those are two quite big issues. Do you want to start on cost savings, Stephen?
Stephen Morgan: As we have heard today, too many children are growing up in poverty in our country, and that is why it is important that the ministerial taskforce concludes later this year and decides what actions can be taken forward. As of 2023, one in four children were in absolute poverty, and that is why I am so pleased with the many measures that will make a big difference to children’s lives up and down the country. Take breakfast clubs, which we know are good for attainment, behaviour and attendance: they will put £450 per child, per year, back in the pockets of parents, but also bring real benefits to children. More broadly, the commitments around uniform limits will make a real difference, as we have heard today, and will save the average parent £50. A series of measures in the Bill will make a real difference in the cost of living challenges that parents up and down the country are facing. Thank you for the question.
Catherine McKinnell: On keeping children safe, I know that this is an area that you have spent a lot of time working in and have spoken about. The register of children not in school will be an important step, and has had cross-party support in this House for some time. We will also have the single unique identifier, which will be a way of making sure that information about a child does not fall through the gaps, and that children do not fall through the safety gap.
There is also a whole raft of changes that aim to ensure that multi-agency working is embedded in our approach to safeguarding, as well as measures to try to keep children within the family unit, wherever that is possible, and strengthen the approach to kinship care. We have put funding in place to support local kinship care arrangements and are trialling better information being available. There is a range of measures, and clearly this is a big priority for us in the Bill.
Damian Hinds
Q
Catherine McKinnell: I appreciate the premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I appreciate that he is very experienced in this place and that he has had the experience of being in government for quite some time, and having the opportunity to do all those things and make the necessary changes. We wanted to move as fast as we could to make the impact that children need to see, particularly in safeguarding. We also wanted to make the long thought-through changes to our school system to support our opportunity mission and break down those barriers to ensure that every child has every opportunity to succeed. Admittedly, we are not going to lose any time in making the changes that we want to see, and we have the opportunity in the parliamentary time allocated to us.
Damian Hinds
Ah.
Catherine McKinnell: It is very important that we use it. We are a Government on a mission, and we have a lot of things to do.
Amanda Martin
Q
Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is very much at the heart of what we want to achieve through our changes to schools. We want to ensure that every child has a good school place; that every parent can be confident that their child will be taught by a qualified teacher within their local mainstream school wherever possible, being educated with their peers; that no vulnerable child falls through the cracks; and that we know where they are if they are not in school. We are making important changes on admissions to ensure that all the schools in a local area collaborate with their local authority on place planning, so that we can really deliver on that vision.
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)
Damian Hinds ExcerptsTuesday 21st January 2025
(1 year, 3 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 View all Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 January 2025 - (21 Jan 2025)
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
Q
Anne Longfield: There are a number of other interventions that we could include that would strengthen children’s participation and children’s being at the centre of their communities. One of those is around children’s play. We know that children’s access to play has reduced dramatically over recent years. Play is the thing that children say they want: it is at the top of their list. We were very worried about access to play and the dominance of social media in children’s lives. Wales introduced a play sufficiency duty in 2010. It was not a huge cost. It meant that local authorities had to plan for play and respond to play. That kind of strategy would be, for a first stage, a very cost-effective way of reflecting children’s needs in the community.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Q
Could you also say a word or two about the mental health of children and young people survey, wave 4 of which was most recently published by the NHS and the future of which is uncertain? Would you like to see that series of surveying and reporting carried on?
Dr Homden: Yes, we would. It is incredibly important that we are able to account for the implementation and for whether the Bill actually helps us to improve children’s wellbeing. It is also extremely important that that happens systematically across local services and in any area in which we can respond and adapt services to meet the needs of children. Generally, we feel that it is extremely important that wellbeing measurement is advanced and made more systematic and consistent.
The Chair
That brings us to the end of this session. I thank our witnesses.
Examination of Witnesses
Andy Smith and Ruth Stanier gave evidence.
Damian Hinds
Q
Ruth Stanier: We very much welcome the provisions in this Bill around breakfast clubs. We think it is incredibly important that—
Damian Hinds
Forgive me, but that is a different question. We know what the legislation proposes for primary school breakfast, but my question was about whether you have heard anything—whether you have had any guarantees—about the future of existing support for breakfast clubs in secondary schools in underprivileged areas, or for the holiday activities and food programme.
Ruth Stanier: On the first of those issues, I am not aware of any such guarantees or representations. I can see the point you are making, which is important. In respect of holiday activities, I have seen recent media coverage that seems potentially positive. Clearly, we very much want that support to remain in place.
Andy Smith: My view would be similar to Ruth’s. The evidence and the impact of HAF are so tangible. We absolutely strongly support that continuing for the most vulnerable children.
Damian Hinds
Q
Andy Smith: We have not made a estimate about how much cost would come with the system. Clearly, there would need to be a new burdens assessment on any changes, because you cannot do these reforms on the cheap. It is really important to make that point.
From previous surveys that we have done with local authorities on elective home education, it is evident that over the last 10 to 12 years, the capacity has been hollowed out. You are often talking about not even a full-time post. In my authority, for example, we have less than one full-time equivalent worker on EHE, who goes out and knocks on doors and tries to talk to parents. If you superimpose the changes envisaged by the Bill, that provision would be significantly insufficient. This is much more than an administrative task. Some councils have an admin-like role that undertakes this function.
Notwithstanding whether there is currently too much detail, if we think about the practical things around visits, understanding the offer, trying to understand what is happening to children and building up that picture, there would need to be sufficient capacity to get sufficient workers in post across places to do that, and they would need be sufficiently trained. That is probably more important in terms of the line of sight on the child than having a huge amount of information and detail about mums and dads and carers.
Damian Hinds
Q
“The advice and information to be provided is whatever the local authority considers fit”.
You mentioned a moment ago that there would be some benefit in having more consistency across the country. Would you give a few thoughts on what you think “fit” is in terms of that support? In particular, a question that often comes up from parents is about entry into examinations.
Andy Smith: What constitutes a good elective home education offer will be very different depending on the parent and on the context, and depending sometimes on the rationale around why parents decided to implement EHE for their child. There should be some consistency around what those expectations are. We know that parents provide some fantastic enriched opportunities for their children through EHE and they are able to also sit exams, and there will be some learning from that.
The challenge in this space is that we are not starting with a level playing field. We have moved from a context where we were maybe 10 or 15 years ago, where you had parents who were EHE because of philosophical reasons around that being important for children and for their particular lifestyle. We are now often talking about kids who are not in school because they have been sidelined or discriminated against, because they are SEND or because they are being bullied. There needs to be some expectation and understanding around their starting points as well as what a good offer looks like.
We need to work that through based on the research. We need to try to co-produce that with parents. We need to do that in a way that we think will be broad enough not to tie parents down, but to ensure some consistency, particularly in terms of what the local authority role is and understanding the impact of that.
Ruth Stanier: I want to stress that if it were to be mandatory for councils to pay for exam fees, because clearly there is a case for that, it obviously would need to be funded.
The Chair
We still have six keen people wanting to come in, so can we have brief single questions and answers, please?
Amanda Martin
Q
Paul Whiteman: We absolutely support that. A statutory duty for schools and educators to be consulted in that respect is necessary, and it will widen the voices within that. After all, it is in schools that children are most present and visible, and teachers and school leaders already play a role in noticing changes and issues.
Julie McCulloch: We feel the same way. I would simply add that it is a growing set of responsibilities on schools—burden is not the right word, because schools absolutely need to do it. We are hearing a lot about the pressures on designated safeguarding leads in schools. While we also welcome schools’ having a statutory role here, we need to recognise that schools will need support and sufficient resources to deliver that.
Damian Hinds
Q
Paul Whiteman: I think you are asking the wrong people. I do not know what is in the minds of Government.
Damian Hinds
Q
Paul Whiteman: Damian, you know me too well. I cannot answer what was in the minds of Government. Broadly speaking, as I have said, I think it is a legitimate expectation of parents that a teacher in front of their child is qualified to teach them. On the push from both your Government and this Government for standards to be the voice of parents, and in talking about doing this for the expectations of parents, I think that gets alongside that ambition, so it is welcome.
On the pay flexibilities, the debate is louder than it needs to be because of the point that you made—we have not really deviated much from the STCPD. The whole point of having an independent pay review body to establish what the floors should be has worked in that regard but we need it to offer more, and obviously we would always say that. Where I would phrase it slightly differently, on the question of whether we would ask for an amendment for a floor and not a ceiling, is I would talk about a core rather than a floor. There should be a core of terms and conditions that means a teacher or school leader is agile within the system and portable. We do not want people being stuck and unable to move because the terms and conditions vary so widely. That would work against our ambition of delivering the very best education system and getting the best teachers in front of children.
Julie McCulloch: I would not disagree with anything there. Core is a better term and it suggests not a minimum but a core entitlement, and I think that is right. On pay and conditions, yes. We hear from our members that some of them have exercised some upward flexibilities and they are keen to able to continue to do that, and to recognise the context in which they are operating. They are keen to maintain that while keeping that core. QTS is a very small number, but where that number exists, there might be reasons for it. It is important to recognise the balance between wanting a fully qualified professional and some of the nuance there.
Damian Hinds
Q
Paul Whiteman: As a trade union that is politically independent and speaks to all of you, I have no insight into what might be in Labour’s next Bill.
The Chair
I think that is not a terribly serious question, Damian. Darren, let us get on with it.
Qualifications Reform Review
Damian Hinds Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Janet Daby
I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the many important contributions of the FE sector. Pay is not currently set by the pay review bodies, including for FE, and the Government do not set recommended pay in further education. With that said, my noble Friend the Minister has full knowledge of the needs and crucial role of the FE college sector.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
When the Minister’s other noble Friend—the distinguished Labour peer Lord Sainsbury—conducted his landmark review of technical and vocational qualifications, he found that they were not only multitudinous and heavily overlapping but had become divorced to a large extent from the very sectors of industry that they were supposed to serve. The overhanging qualifications reform is a massive power grab that the new Government are carrying out, creating a body called Skills England and abolishing the independent institute that oversees technical education standards. Skills England is not even a separate body; it is part of the Department for Education management structure. Under the legislation going through Parliament, the Secretary of State will take to herself the power to oversee standards in technical education. That would not be acceptable for A-levels so, as I asked in Westminster Hall the other day, how can it be possibly acceptable for T-levels? What does that say about this Government’s commitment to parity of esteem?
Janet Daby
I will ask my noble Friend the Minister to get back to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.
May I make a correction to what I said in my statement? Qualifications in agriculture, environment and animal care, legal, finance and accounting, business and administration and creative design will not be defunded before 2027, not 2024.
Oral Answers to Questions
Damian Hinds Excerpts(1 year, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he is undertaking in making his local schools aware of the opportunities that breakfast clubs present. The early adopters scheme will enable up to 750 participating schools to start providing them from April 2025 onwards. We have tripled investment in breakfast clubs following the Budget. Schools have until 20 December to apply for the scheme, and I would encourage many more to do so.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Thousands of schools are already participating in the national school breakfast club programme, including many special schools and secondary schools, but the clubs actually have a bigger effect on attendance. The Secretary of State has talked a great deal about breakfast clubs in primary schools, but what is the future for the existing clubs in those special and secondary schools?
Bridget Phillipson
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the interest that I know—from his former roles—he takes in this issue. We are building on the existing programmes, expanding investment and opportunities, but I agree with him that we need to ensure that breakfast clubs are available to all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. To ensure that the roll-out is a success, some of the early adopters will be in special and alternative provision schools.
Apprenticeships and T-Levels
Damian Hinds Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered apprenticeships and T Levels.
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.
UK productivity is well below that of the United States, Germany and France. That is not a new thing; it has been true in every year I have been alive. If we were able to fix that productivity gap, we could have higher living standards, lower tax and more tax revenue. There are multiple reasons for the gap and much academic literature has been written on it, but the level of skills in an economy is fundamental to productivity and therefore to growth. How we run our skills system is also important, because there is a cadre of young people who are less orientated towards pure academic study but have talent and flair in technical pursuits, and they deserve just the same opportunities and life chances as those who take the academic route.
In this country, although we are famous for aspects of our education system, including for our higher education—our universities—and increasingly for aspects of our school system, we are not, I am afraid, famous for technical and vocational education and training. When foreign Ministers come to Europe to look at vocational education, they tend to go to Germany, and if there is one thing we do not like in England, it is losing out to Germany.
It is right that successive Governments have been troubled by this situation and sought to fix it, but perhaps sometimes they have been a bit too quick to look for a fix. The story of our organisational infrastructure for technical and vocational provision is not one of stability. We have had industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission, and training and enterprise councils—TECs. But those TECs were different from another TEC—the Technician Education Council, which existed alongside the Business Education Council, BEC. The two would eventually merge, of course, to give us BTECs. There were national training organisations; the Learning and Skills Council; sector skills councils; the UK Commission for Employment and Skills; the Skills Funding Agency, or SFA, which would later be the ESFA—the Education and Skills Funding Agency—and, most recently, local skills improvement plans and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.
The infrastructure has been mirrored by a panoply of qualifications and awards. We have had traditional apprenticeships and then modern apprenticeships; the youth training scheme; the City & Guilds system; the technical and vocational education initiative; the National Council for Vocational Qualifications; NVQs, which are still in use; and GNVQs, which evolved into BTECs and diplomas. There were the 14 to 19 diplomas, which were not quite the same thing as the Tomlinson diplomas; the skills for life programme; and traineeships. Altogether, today, there are somewhere between 100 and 200 recognised awarding organisations, excluding those that only do apprenticeship end-point assessments.
Now, just at level 3—the equivalent to A-levels—we have the following qualifications: tech levels as well as T-levels; applied generals; level 3 ESOL; level 3 NVQ, and access to higher education diplomas. There is a level 3 award, a level 3 certificate and a level 3 diploma—or someone might prefer a level 3 national certificate or a level 3 national diploma. There is also an extended diploma, a subsidiary diploma, and a technical introductory diploma. There is no official count, but by the mid-2010s someone had counted up what they could find and said that, together with other, non-level 3 courses available to 16 to 18-year-olds, there were at least 13,000 possible qualifications that someone in that age group could do. It is not surprising that when the Independent Panel on Technical Education was created in 2015-16, it found that vocational education and training had become “over-complex”.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate. Some 6.9% of young people in Somerset are believed to be not in education, employment or training, which is higher than the national average of 5.5%. Does he agree that the Government should not only improve the quality of vocational education, but strengthen the careers advice and links with employers in schools and colleges, to enable more young people to get into education on the right courses?
Damian Hinds
Indeed—the hon. Member is absolutely right. Part of the point of careers advice is knowing which course to take and which qualification to pursue. The panel that I mentioned found that if someone was considering a career in plumbing, for example, there were 33 different qualifications that they might seek to take. It also found that in general the various qualifications were not providing the skills needed; they had become divorced from the occupations they were meant to serve, with no requirement, or only a weak requirement, to meet employers’ needs in those occupations.
The panel’s report, which came out in April 2016, became a blueprint for a major upgrade of technical and vocational education in this country. The panel was determined to address both the productivity gap and very clearly also the social justice gap, whereby some young people were being left behind. I stress that although the report was a blueprint, it was also a “redprint”: the panel was chaired by the noble Lord Sainsbury, the distinguished Labour peer. The report called for “a fundamental shift”, with
“a coherent technical education option…from levels 2…to…5”.
There would be 15 clearly defined sector routes, covering 35 different career pathways. Three of those routes would be available only through an apprenticeship; the other 12 would be available either through an apprenticeship or a college track, and there would be common standards for both. Both the apprenticeship and college-based routes would result in
“the same or equivalent technical knowledge, skills and behaviours”
to take into the workplace. The report said that this path
“needs to be clearly delineated from the academic option, as they are designed for different purposes. But, at the same time, movement between the two must be possible…in either direction”.
The report also recommended expanding the then Institute for Apprenticeships into an Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, so as to cover both apprenticeship and college tracks. It added:
“Specifying the standards…is not a role for officials in central government but for professionals working in…occupations, supported by…education professionals.”
It recommended that there should be improvements to apprenticeships and a new, largely college-based qualification, which would become known as the T-level.
With T-levels, the knowledge, skills content and required behaviours are set not by somebody at the Department of Education but by employers. There is the core technical qualification, but there is also content in English, maths and digital. Crucially, there is a 45-day industrial placement. There are also more college hours than with traditional vocational qualifications and indeed more taught hours per week than for A-levels.
For the upgrade that we needed in our country, in both productivity and opportunities available to all young people, T-levels had to become the principal college-based option—not the only option, but the principal or main college-based vocational qualification. And the T-level could not be grafted on to a market that already had thousands of qualifications; there was an incumbency advantage and even commercial interests attached to some of those. It had to replace a number—a lot—of qualifications. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, has been speaking about this quite recently.
The other thing that was always going to be difficult about T-levels was finding enough industry placements. Lord Sainsbury found that we might need up to 250,000 industry placements for 17-year-olds, and that, of course, is hard to achieve. We could say that it is too hard and give up, but if we did that we would be giving up on advancing our competitiveness.
The alternative is that we change culture in our country and say to companies that if they want to be a great success in their sector, and their sector to be a great success in our country, and our whole country to be a success in the world, we all have to invest both the resource and the time in the next generation.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I do not disagree with the right hon. Member on that point; I just wanted to highlight that in my constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes there is an apprenticeship provider called CATCH. Local businesses have come together to invest in a brand-new welding apprenticeship facility that will deliver 1,000 apprentices over the next few years. Is that the kind of partnership working that he envisages, which works well for local communities, young people and business?
Damian Hinds
I am sure it is. I will come to apprenticeships in a moment, but I was just talking about industry placements in T-levels.
From speaking to young people who are doing T-levels, colleagues will know that their most popular feature is probably the fact that young people get to do a real role in a real workplace. The placements are also popular with the employers that provide T-levels: first, the employers are investing in the next generation and helping develop all the things the lack of which they sometimes complain about—soft skills and workplace skills—and secondly, the placements are the most fantastic, longest-ever job interview, when employers get to see the people who may come and work in their company over an extended period. I appeal to Ministers to carry on the great work of shouting about T-levels and talking about these great opportunities and the upgrade they represent.
There were two big changes to apprenticeships. The first ensured that there were minimum standards. Previously, as colleagues will recall, some apprenticeships were so thin and flimsy that the apprentices did not know they were on one. After minimum standards came in, apprenticeships would last at least one year and involve at least 20% of time off the job. As with T-levels, there would be an end-point assessment, which would feature standards set by employers.
The second big change was the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. That has always been controversial with some employers, but it was there to do two things. First, it raises the funds needed to pay for a big upgrade in apprenticeship provision. Secondly, it deals with the free rider problem, with which we will all be familiar: some companies in a sector have always strongly invested in young people, but three years later those young people leave to work for another employer that can offer to pay more but has not made the investment in the first place. The apprenticeship levy deals directly with that free rider problem, as economists call it, so that every sizeable company contributes properly.
The new Government plan to change the scope of the levy and to introduce two new types of apprenticeship, which it is fair to say we do not know a huge amount about: foundation apprenticeships and shorter apprenticeships. There is an argument that we already make the word “apprenticeship” do a lot of work—it covers a wide spectrum. Arguably, there are three types of development of self and training, which have different needs: someone may be a career starter, career developer or career changer, and the specifications of the courses and qualifications are different. For example, a 50-year-old who is changing career does not need to learn as many things about what it is like to enter a workplace for the first time as an 18-year-old does. In truth, only one of those types of training is what a normal member of the public associates with the word “apprentice”: we think typically of people who are young and starting out on their working journey.
It is totally legitimate to look at changing what the levy covers, and it is good to refocus on young people—career starters. It is also reasonable to say that the levy could cover some things that are not apprenticeships, such as management development or traineeships, but there is huge value in maintaining integrity around what we mean by the word “apprenticeship”, and keeping a minimum length and quantity of college or off-work content.
Whatever the Government do with the levy, they need to find a way to deal with the free rider problem. The Government will always be lobbied by companies saying, “We should be able to use the levy for this, that and the other”, but if “this, that and the other” means training that they would have paid for anyway, then the levy will not have achieved its goal. It has to be something that creates a net increase in the amount of training and development available.
That brings me to Skills England. Now, Ministers like shiny new things, and some people will always lobby for things to change. A sweet spot is found in public policy when the two coincide: Ministers get lobbied to do something, and they think they have come up with a shiny new thing that sounds like it will achieve those ends. Skills England is one of those things; I am afraid that, without major design change, it is doomed to failure. I have no doubt that plenty of people who lobbied the Government when they were in opposition said, “We need a different approach to skills. We need to think about them across Government, take the long view, listen to employers, listen to young people and have an integrated approach.” The Government have come up with this thing called Skills England, which they think will do that.
Skills England will be the 13th new skills agency in five decades. If all it took to solve our skills and productivity problem was a change in the machinery of government, do the Government not think that one of the previous 12 might already have managed it? The instinct in difficult circumstances is to break glass and reach for a quango, but Skills England is not even a quango; it is nada—not quasi-autonomous, but a non-accountable departmental agency—and there is no reason to think it will be any better at working across Government, let alone across the economy, in solving these issues.
If the Government were serious about creating something new to join together the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the DFE and everybody else, they would put it in the Treasury or perhaps the Cabinet Office. They would not just make it part of the DFE management structure. Worse than that is the loss of independence compared with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.
There is legislation currently going through the other place that ostensibly creates Skills England, but it does no such thing. All it does is abolish the independent institute and move all of its powers into the Department for Education. The Secretary of State will now have responsibility for standards for T-levels. Imagine if that were the case for A-levels. If it is not all right for A-levels, why should it be all right for T-levels?
Damian Hinds
If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will continue.
There is also no guarantee that business will continue to be involved in setting those standards. I am afraid that public and business confidence is set to be eroded—rightly, because everybody knows that the easiest way for the Government to increase the numbers of people doing anything in education is to erode standards to get more people through.
I believe the Sainsbury report was—and still is—a good blueprint. Of course, the Government are entitled to evolve it, but they should recognise that the principles remain sound. With T-levels, it was always going to be hard to get sufficient industry placements and to overcome powerful objections that we need to change the system rather than just add to it. With apprenticeships, there will always be, as there always have been, firms that try to game the system. We can argue about what the levy should or should not cover, but it is a good thing and it needs to be designed and maintained to encourage a net increase in investment in this area and to deal with the free rider problem.
There will always be some cost and downside when the bar of minimum standards is raised, as we did. We need to remember where we started, with the need to increase productivity and have higher expectations for all in the interests of social justice. We need to maintain those minimum standards to keep apprenticeships and T-levels equivalent, with the same levels of knowledge, skills and behaviours.
Finally, the independence of the body that sets the standards, working with and for business, is key. The Government will obviously keep Skills England, but I ask the Minister to build into its design proper, full independence from her Department, and a proper, full guiding role for the businesses these occupations need to serve. I want Ministers not just to say that, but to write it into the legislation.
Damian Hinds
It has been a good debate. I thank everyone who took part for bringing their own perspectives. There is just one thing I want to say. We cannot legislate for parity of esteem; we can only earn it. High-quality apprenticeships and T-levels can do that, because young people know that the standards have been set by employers, and they are right for the levels necessary for success in those sectors. Crucially, to have confidence in the integrity of qualifications, they need to be set independently and, in the case of these qualifications, they need to be set with business. The Minister has an opportunity with a Bill going through Parliament at the moment. When the IfATE transfer of powers Bill comes to Committee stage in the Commons, please will the Government table an amendment to write that independence and the involvement of business into law?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered apprenticeships and T Levels.
Educational Opportunities
Damian Hinds Excerpts(1 year, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I commend the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this broad-ranging debate on barriers to education opportunities. There are many things that we could talk about, but in 150 seconds I will restrict myself to three things.
The first is about free school meals. Labour Members said some pretty terrible things in 2018 about what we would do to eligibility for free school meals. It did not happen. In reality, the number of children eligible has risen from about one in six in 2010 to one in three most recently, and that is despite employment, the number of children growing up in workless households and the number of people in work and on low pay having come right down. What will the Government do to keep entitlement at around the same level as now even after universal credit roll-out has concluded?
Secondly, I want to ask about the holiday activities and food programme, which has been successful for young people. I am sure the new Government would not dream of cutting it, but a lot of local areas—I know that one in Yorkshire has been discussing the matter very recently—want some reassurance and some forward visibility about what will happen with the HAF programme after the end of this year.
Finally, I wanted to ask about breakfast clubs. The Government have talked a great deal about primary school breakfast clubs and people are quite disappointed about the scale of what they have heard so far. The total percentage of primary schools in England covered by the first phase is, I think, 4.5%. They also talk about breakfast clubs as if they were something novel, whereas in reality there are thousands in schools across the country already. So when they say they need to move slowly because they need to have a pilot, what does the Minister think needs to be piloted? Is it the type of bowl or the angle of pour of the cornflakes, or is it just that they are trying slow down the roll-outs?
Most importantly, I want to ask about secondary schools and special schools. Among the thousands of breakfast clubs, including those supported by the national school breakfast programme, are those in secondary schools and special schools. If we are talking about impacting something like attendance, we can have more of an impact with breakfast clubs at secondary school. Again, I am sure that the Government will not think about cutting that programme—it would be unthinkable to do so—but what will they do? When will they give visibility to secondary schools and special schools about how they will grow the support for breakfast clubs in schools in the future?
Janet Daby
I have so much to get through that I am afraid I cannot.
Skills policy has too often been made in isolation, leading to a system that is confusing for employers and individuals, and that does not lead to the right jobs for our population. Skills shortage vacancies in England more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, from 226,500 to 531,200. Too few young people—indeed, people of all ages—have been able to gain the benefits of a quality post-16 education. Those figures are shocking.
We need to do so much more to ensure that people do not face unemployment, low wages and poor health outcomes. The lack of a clear plan has led to widespread skill shortages in areas such as construction, manufacturing, hospitality, information and communication, healthcare and social care. That is why meeting the skill needs of the next decade is central to delivering the Government’s five missions: economic growth, opportunity for all, a stronger NHS, safer streets and clean energy. We aim to create a clear, flexible, high-quality skills system that supports people of all ages, breaks down barriers to opportunity and drives economic growth.
We have not stood still. Last month’s Budget included an investment of an additional £300 million in further education to ensure that young people develop the skills they need. It also included £950 million of skills capital funding, including £300 million to ensure that college estates are in good condition so they meet students’ learning needs. We have also commenced a curriculum and assessment review, which is now in full swing with roadshows up and down the country. It will deliver a curriculum that is rich in knowledge, strong in skills and led by evidence. We have announced the youth guarantee, which will help to ensure that young people have the opportunity to acquire the skills that they need.
We will reform the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy to deliver greater flexibility for both learners and employers. As a first step we will introduce foundation apprenticeships to give more young people a foot in the door. The new foundation apprenticeships will support clear progression pathways into further work-based training and sustained employment. We will support and fill the pipeline of new talent that employers need. We are investing £40 million to support the development and delivery of foundation apprenticeships, as well as apprenticeships of a shorter duration that will provide further flexibility for employers, as so many have called for.
We have also listened to feedback about qualifications; concerns were expressed about the rapid pace of reforms from the previous Government, about the quality of qualifications and about how they do not always serve students well. This Government are determined to do better—and indeed we will. We have therefore announced a short-term internal review of qualifications reform, which clearly signals our intention to balance the range of concerns and to provide clarity in the qualifications landscape. We believe that this is the best way to support students, unlock opportunity, harness talent and drive growth.
We have introduced Skills England in shadow form. It will ensure we have the highly trained workforce needed to deliver national, regional and local skills for the next decade, aligned with the upcoming industrial strategy. Skills England will ensure that there is a comprehensive choice of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications for individuals and employers to access. Skills England will ensure that the skills system is clear, and that both young people and older adults can navigate it, strengthening career pathways into jobs across the economy. It will increase the quality and quantity of skills development in the workplace by providing an authoritative assessment of national and regional skills needs in the economy, now and in the future.
Moving to the school rebuilding programme, this Government have increased next year’s capital allocation to improve school buildings to £2.1 billion, which is £300 million more than this year. We have also committed to £1.4 billion to support the current school rebuilding programme to deliver 518 projects across England.
Many issues have been raised about children with special educational needs and disabilities and the anxieties of their parents. On reform, this Government’s ambition is that all children and young people with SEND will receive the right support to succeed in their education and as they move into adult life. We are committed to improving inclusiveness and expertise in mainstream schools, and to ensuring that special school provision continues to meet children’s most complex needs. That will restore parents’ trust, as they will know that their child is getting the support they desperately need. We will work with the sector, as it is essential that we join our valued partners in that shared vision.
There were questions about free school meals and ensuring that children are eligible. We have a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity, and to confront child poverty. The continued provision of free school meals to disadvantaged children plays an important role in that. The Government spend around £1.5 billion annually on free lunches for over 3 million pupils. As with all Government programmes, we will keep our approach open and continue to review it. It remains our ambition that no child should go hungry.
We are also doing a child poverty review. The new child poverty ministerial taskforce will drive cross-Government action on child poverty, starting by overseeing the development of an ambitious child poverty strategy, which will be published next spring. The taskforce publication of 23 October, “Tackling Child Poverty: Developing Our Strategy”, sets out our framework for how the strategy will be developed, harnessing all available levers to deliver a reduction in child poverty in this Parliament as part of our ambitious 10-year strategy, which addresses its root causes.
On breakfast clubs, we will remove barriers to opportunities by ensuring that every primary school pupil, no matter their circumstance, is well prepared for school. From April 2025, free breakfast clubs will be available for up to 750 early adopters ahead of the national roll-out. Early adopters will allow us to identify and tackle barriers to implementing the full breakfast club roll-out. That is the first step in our commitment to enable breakfast clubs in all primary schools.
Damian Hinds
Before the Minister moves on, my main question on breakfast clubs was about what happens to the national school breakfast programme for secondary and special schools. We have heard a lot about primary schools, but we have not heard much about secondary and special schools in disadvantaged areas. Is she in a position to tell us a little more about that?
Janet Daby
This Government are committed to tackling child poverty. As I have already outlined as regards the poverty taskforce, many of the issues and areas are continuing to be reviewed and worked out. We are determined to bring down child poverty. On the specific areas the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, more information will be coming, but I am afraid he will have to be patient, as we had to be patient for the past 14 years.
I also add that through the children’s wellbeing Bill, which has been mentioned, the Government will look to introduce further strategies for improving the outcomes for children and young people, and to make the reform and changes that we need. The Bill will be introduced, as parliamentary time allows, and we appreciate Members’ patience.
Time is quickly moving on and running out. I could say so much more about so many other areas that were mentioned, but I am afraid I will have to move to a close. We will try to respond where we can, but I ask Members, please, to continue to write in and ask questions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for securing the debate on such an important matter and I hope the House appreciates that I made every attempt to respond.
Universities: Freedom of Speech
Damian Hinds Excerpts(1 year, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State if she will make a statement on freedom of speech in universities.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
It was a Labour Government who enshrined in law the right to freedom of expression, and it is a Labour Government who will again uphold freedom of speech and academic freedom on our university campuses—not through creating a culture war, but through working with academics, students and campaigners to get the legislation right.
The Secretary of State wrote to colleagues and made a written statement on 24 July 2024 on her decision to pause further commencement of the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act 2023 in order to consider options. We have heard concerns from minority groups and others that that Act and its implementation may have unintended consequences and result in disproportionate burdens for universities and student unions. Many are concerned that it could push providers to overlook the safety and wellbeing of minority groups over fears of sanction and costly action.
I want to provide the House with reassurance that this Government believe that higher education must be a space for robust discussion that exposes both students and academics to challenging ideas. The decision to pause the Act was made precisely because of the importance of getting this legislation right. The Secretary of State indicated in her written statement that she would confirm her long-term plans for the Act “as soon as possible”. Since then, officials and Ministers have engaged with a wide range of stakeholders on the future of the Act. This includes representatives of higher education providers and academics, including those from the Committee for Academic Freedom, Academics for Academic Freedom and the London Universities’ Council for Academic Freedom. Those officials and Ministers will continue to engage with stakeholders before any final decision is made.
Damian Hinds
This evening, a Member of this House was due to speak at an event at Cambridge University. That event will not go ahead as planned because of safety concerns. It is absolutely not for us to question operational decision making, but it absolutely is for us to question this Government about legislation and the effects—direct, indirect and chilling—of the decisions they have made since coming to office.
Last year, the Higher Education (Freedom of Speech) Act became law. In the end, having attracted cross-party support after extensive working with students and academics, it passed all its stages in Parliament and received Royal Assent. That Act is about protecting free speech on campus, including for visiting speakers, and it is about academic freedom to challenge conventional wisdom and put forward unpopular and controversial opinions. However, in July this year, the new Secretary of State decided—without any parliamentary debate—not to commence that Act.
The Minister speaks about a wide range of stakeholders. Some 600 academics, including seven Nobel prize laureates, have written to the Secretary of State in support of the legislation. Does the Secretary of State really think that those academics would support that legislation if it was, as the Government put it, a Tory hate charter? Will she now agree to meet those academics, and will she please now do the right thing and commence the legislation that Parliament has passed?
Catherine McKinnell
This Government are absolutely committed to freedom of speech. The Secretary of State paused the further implementation of the Act to consider options and ensure we get the legislation right, and she will confirm as soon as possible the plans for the Act and long-term plans for the continuation of freedom of speech in higher education. The higher education sector, minority groups, and unions representing staff on campus have raised concerns about the Act, believing it to be disproportionate, burdensome and damaging to the welfare of students, and fear that sanctions could result in minority groups’ concerns being overlooked. MPs and peers raised a whole range of these concerns during the Bill’s passage. By stepping back from the legislation to reflect on which of the measures introduced are needed, the Government are taking a pragmatic approach to ensuring that higher education remains a space for constructive dialogue and a home for diverse opinions. It should not be a battleground for ideological clashes.
We are considering the next steps. I take on board the shadow Secretary of State’s request for the Secretary of State to meet those he mentioned. She has held a range of meetings with all groups that have concerns and want a say in how this consideration continues. I am sure that she will have further meetings and I will pass on his specific request.
Ofsted
Damian Hinds Excerpts(1 year, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con) (Urgent Question)
To ask the Secretary of State for Education if she will make a statement on proposed changes to Ofsted reporting.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
As the Government explained in the written ministerial statement that was laid yesterday, and as was outlined in our manifesto, single headline grades will no longer be issued by Ofsted when it inspects state-funded schools. Our landmark reform will drive high and rising standards for children, and will increase transparency for parents.
Today Ofsted published the outcome of its Big Listen consultation exercise, the largest engagement with parents, children and professionals in its history, which, as the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) will know, began under the last Government. The Big Listen contains some difficult messages. It is clear that significant change is needed, and Ofsted has responded by committing itself to improvements.
Holding schools accountable for children’s education is vital, but single headline grades are low information for parents and create high stakes for schools, so this Government are acting, making inspections both more powerful and more transparent. For this academic year, parents will continue to see four inspection grades for the existing sub-categories, and from September 2025 the introduction of school report cards will provide a more complete picture of a school’s performance. We will develop those over the coming months, working closely with parents and schools.
We want high and rising standards for every child, and we will act decisively when those standards are not being met. We will continue to intervene when performance is a serious concern. Ofsted’s legal duty to identify schools causing concern will remain. They will still be required to notify the Secretary of State of these inspection outcomes, and she will retain her legal duty to issue an academy order to local authority-maintained schools when that is required. However, we will change the way in which schools are supported to help them succeed. From early 2025, we will introduce regional improvement teams, which will partner with struggling schools to drive improvement quickly and directly. This marks the beginning, not the end, of our journey towards an accountability system that is fit for purpose and will help to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child throughout the country.
Damian Hinds
The system can certainly improve. After the terrible tragedy of Ruth Perry, changes were made, and, as the Minister said, Ofsted initiated its wider Big Listen consultation. We supported that, and I welcome much of what was in Ofsted’s announcement today, but I fear that the Government have not thought through the consequences of their own announcement yesterday. The overall effectiveness assessment is a vital indicator for parents, and it also plays a specific role in the statutory framework.
Can the Minister confirm that Ofsted will still have a legal duty to identify schools needing “special measures” or “requiring significant improvement”, that the Department will still intervene, and that this will be based on the same criteria as before, with the use of the same word, “inadequate”, but now in any one of four categories? When will there be clarity for other sectors—early years, colleges, prisons and social care? Crucially, what are the implications for intervention if children’s social care in an area is failing, with all the terrible consequences that that can bring? There is already a wealth of report card information on schools, from pupil progress to attendance. What will actually be new in the report cards that the Minister mentioned?
A rather less discussed aspect of yesterday’s announcement is the introduction of the ominous-sounding regional improvement teams to monitor struggling schools, rather a good fit being found with an academy trust. Apparently, they will be funded by—yes, you guessed it—VAT on independent schools. In respect of schools with successive “requires improvement” judgments, can the Minister tell us what reason there is to believe that regional improvement teams will be more effective in delivering improvements than a strong academy trust?
Between 2010 and 2024, the proportion of schools rated less than good came down from about one in three to one in 10. What worries me is that these changes mean less transparency for parents and a step backwards, from a proven school improvement approach with academy trusts to a directive top-down approach. I urge the Secretary of State and her Minister to assess the true impact that this will have on young people's prospects before it is too late.
Catherine McKinnell
The shadow Secretary of State was a Minister in the Department for Education, and he knows these issues well. He also knows that the work we are announcing today is about clearing up the mess that the previous Government left. The Big Listen was announced under his Government, and his former colleague, the previous Chair of the Education Committee, was persuaded of the case for reform of the single-headline grades. Labour is a party of high and rising standards for all our children in all our schools.
Reforming inspection to enable improvement in our schools is urgent. Inspection and accountability are crucial tools for achieving better outcomes for all our children. We will take no lessons from a party under whose watch one in four children left primary school without meeting the standards expected in maths and reading. One in five children are persistently absent from school, and it is not good enough. We are determined to fix it, and the announcement that we have made is the first step on that road.