Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Young of Cookham (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Marlow Education Trust, which is a multi-academy trust.

This amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend, is necessary to confirm and clarify the objectives of the Bill, but also to stop the Government doing anything that is outside those objectives. I recall a similar purpose amendment being moved at the beginning of the Renters’ Rights Bill by my noble friends; a similar amendment was tabled at the beginning of the then Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Lib Dem Benches, proposed an identical purposes amendment to the then Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. It therefore seems that such so-called purpose amendments are becoming a feature of the process of legislative scrutiny, made more necessary when the time for Second Reading, which also deals with the purpose of the Bill, was so short.

The amendment sets out the ambitions of the Bill, and the only point I want to make in a brief intervention is that these ambitions do not seem to take account of the many challenges facing the education sector. The Bill is in a sort of vacuum, detached from the real world.

The provisions of the Bill, as my noble friend just said, will impose new responsibilities on local authorities, children’s services, adult services, schools and teachers, but this is expected at a time when there are already enormous pressures on the sector, raising the question as to whether there will simply be the capacity to deliver, however much good will there may be and however well intentioned the measures.

Let us take finance. Non-protected departments such as the DfE have been told by the Treasury to model reductions of 11% in their expenditure. We do not know the outcome of that round, which is designed to keep the Government within their fiscal rules, but I would expect the department to have to make some uncomfortable decisions, and that will affect the capacity of officials to deliver reform and indeed of the department to fund reform.

These pressures are already present in many local authorities. Several local authorities, many of them education authorities, have already issued Section 114 notices. Some large county councils are being closely monitored by the MHCLG, as they are at risk of falling over this year. If that happens, they will have to cut back on existing services before they think of introducing new ones. The pressure on children’s services is already acute.

Then, as my noble friend mentioned, the Government’s recently announced proposals involve many local authorities being reorganised as we move from two-tier to unitary. There may be good reasons for this, but it will be a major distraction for local authority staff from doing their normal duties as they worry about whether they will have a job within the new structure. Expecting those officers to take on more responsibilities on safeguarding and supporting children in need, children in care, care leavers and children being home-educated is a big ask for those officials at a time of turbulence.

Schools are already confronted with unfunded pay increases for teachers, unfunded before any settlement above the Treasury estimates are arrived at. For many schools, there is an increase in employer contributions for pension funds—unfunded—and the employer NI contributions increase is also not fully funded.

Schools face numerous challenges. Many are struggling to find and retain qualified teachers, particularly in certain subjects such as physics, design and technology, and languages, with some subjects experiencing a 60% to 83% drop in postgraduate teacher recruitment. As my noble friend mentioned, there are also rising mental health issues among children, with a six-year wait for ADHD treatment, as we read in yesterday’s Times2. The SEND system is broken, with councils winning only 1% of appeals, and there has been a significant increase in pupil absenteeism since the pandemic, particularly among disadvantaged children—the subject of recent Questions.

That is the context of the amendment and the Bill. Ministers may fairly argue that some of the pressures are inherited, but many are not, and the Bill’s proposals are, in essence, those of the Government. Ministers are demanding a lot of the system. I pose the question whether there is the headroom, the capacity in the system, to deliver the reforms in the Bill. I hope the Minister will be able to allay my concerns.

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I strongly support the purpose clause, particularly where it describes the purpose of the Bill as being to

“improve … standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales”.

I will be very brief and focus on Part 2, dealing with schools. For me, Part 2 should be first and foremost about promoting parental choice, because only parents really know what sort of education is best for their children: not the state, but parents. There should be choice—as much as possible—since children are all different, and what can be better than an education which enhances the unique talents and personalities of each child? This also chimes with Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states in terms:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.


So choice should be enshrined in any Bill purporting to promote children’s well-being.

Is this the Bill’s aim? Looking at Part 2, I rather fear that the opposite is the case. To take just two examples, academies are important, since their heads have shown by their excellent records of achievement that they know how to run schools better than government. But Part 2 would impose a one-size-fits-all national curriculum on academies, with the worst probably to follow in sweeping Henry VIII powers. Then there are faith schools. What could be more important than a child being educated in an environment rooted in discipline, dignity and duty, which are the hallmarks of our faith schools, such as Haredi schools and other faith schools? But Part 2 would grant sweeping powers to local authorities to monitor, register and regulate faith-based settings. It seems to be an agenda seeking uniformity over choice and threatening our diverse landscape, so much admired across the world. As it stands, therefore, Part 2 of the Bill does not enhance children’s well-being, which is what the Title of the Bill says it is supposed to do.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Carter of Haslemere Excerpts

Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)]

My Lords, I will focus on the aspects of this Bill relating to academies, and I have two points. First, I have read the Second Reading and Committee debates in the other place very carefully, and especially the evidence given about the performance of academies. This was to the effect that 87% of them are good or outstanding, even though many were previously failing schools which became academies for that very reason. Apparently, the top five state schools in England are academies.

The Labour MP Dame Siobhain McDonagh gave examples at Second Reading from her constituency. She cited the Harris academies in Merton and Morden, and the St Mark’s Academy, which are all marked “outstanding” by Ofsted. She said that one of the keys to success of the Merton academy has been the “aspirational curriculum”, which is tailored to pupils’ needs. Forcing such schools to teach the national curriculum risks undermining that. All this is evidence that academies work well as they are, and their heads know how to run schools better than the Government, so why are the Government removing their flexibility to do so?

My second point is more technical and affects how future changes would be made to the way academies have to operate the national curriculum. The bottom line is that it would not be done by primary legislation but by statutory instruments amending primary legislation. This is in addition to Clause 63, which the noble Lord, Lord Addington, has already mentioned. It is a rather “long and winding road”, but the essence is as follows. Clause 47 of the Bill inserts a new Schedule 1A into the Academies Act which mandates the application of the national curriculum provisions in the Education Act 2002 to academies. However, in doing so, it also applies to academies all the order-making powers enjoyed by the Secretary of State under the Education Act. These order-making powers enable the Secretary of State to amend the Education Act and are therefore Henry VIII powers which will now also apply to academies.

They are very substantial powers. For example, the Secretary of State can by such orders add further requirements to the basic national curriculum or amend all the four key stages, as well as the foundation subjects, including attainment targets and assessment arrangements. By virtue of Clause 47, all such changes made by Henry VIII powers will now be applied to academies, almost by the back door. These Henry VIII powers may have been considered acceptable in the Education Act 2002 for maintained schools, but is it really appropriate for them to be able to be used by a side-wind to change the groundbreaking new regime now proposed for academies?

In addition, under Clause 47(5), any such orders can directly amend the new Schedule 1A to the Academies Act, which sets out which provisions of the national curriculum are to apply to academies. This is another Henry VIII power, by which further provisions could therefore be applied to academies. I had thought that this Government were clamping down on Henry VIII powers. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response.