Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Lord Storey and Baroness Blake of Leeds(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I think I win the prize tonight for the most wide-ranging set of amendments that could possibly come together in one group.
I turn first to Amendment 222, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I appreciate the noble Lord’s arguments, which were also put forward in Committee. I thank him for raising them again. However, my view on this remains the same: schools are best placed to understand the needs of their pupils and should be able to choose from a range of options to best suit those needs, with tutoring being one option. Although the national tutoring programme has ended, schools can continue to provide tutoring through the use of funds such as pupil premium, which can be used to support the disadvantaged pupils identified in this proposed amendment. Guidance based on evidence gathered through the programme is available to support schools to deliver tutoring.
In addition, the noble Lord may be aware that on 26 January the Department for Education announced plans to co-create AI tutoring tools with teachers and leading tech companies. This programme will develop and robustly test our AI tutoring tools so they are safe and work for pupils, including the most disadvantaged, and school staff to complement high-quality, face-to-face teaching. We need to have confidence that schools are best able to go forward and use their resources appropriately.
On Amendment 241, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, I fully appreciate the noble Lord’s concerns about the educational attainment of children with a parent in prison. We had a good discussion in Committee and we have committed to identifying and supporting all children affected by parental imprisonment. We welcome the intent of this amendment and assure the noble Lord that the Department for Education is working closely with the Ministry of Justice to determine how we can best identify all children affected, not just those of school age, sensitively and ensure that they get support to enable them to thrive.
I think that emphasis on sensitivity is crucial here. I stress what I have said before, which is that we must not make any assumptions in this area about the experience of individual young people and must make sure that their needs are met across the board. It is a complex picture and our approach is to make sure that we link to a consistent nationwide support offer. We are working through the details of exactly how we can do this. Sharing information and increasing awareness have to be fundamental measures that we look at in this. While I urge the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment, I hope he recognises the seriousness with which we take this subject.
Amendment 243, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, would require new schools to be built to deliver net zero carbon in operation and to be resilient to climate change, and for action plans to be developed for all existing schools to reach net zero and to be resilient to the impacts of climate change. I can confirm that the Department for Education already requires all centrally funded school building projects to be net zero carbon in operation, designed to be climate resilient to a two-degree centigrade rise in average global temperatures and future proofed for a 4% rise, and to incorporate sustainable drainage systems and promote biodiversity. The DfE’s sustainability strategy introduced an expectation for all schools to develop a climate adaptation plan. This is supported by the Climate Ambassadors Network, which provides free expertise to schools.
The considerations set out in the amendment should be included in the setting’s climate action plan. As I say, guidance has been published, and I hope that schools are aware of the programme of support that is available to help them put the plans in place, with the sustainability leadership and climate action plans in education from the department. The requirement for a climate action plan has also been included in the recently updated estate management standards. This policy is designed to ensure that action is taken at a responsible body and/or setting level to ensure that children and young people are prepared for a changing future and that sustainability and climate resilience is built into the operation of the setting.
Turning to Amendment 243A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, I appreciate the intention behind this amendment: to prevent safeguarding procedures being misused for political purposes. The Government cannot support it, however. Safeguarding teams must be able to consider all relevant information to keep children safe, and restricting their ability to take account of political views would make that vital work harder. We recognise the difficulties that schools face when making decisions that require consideration of safeguarding and security risks alongside political impartiality and freedom of speech. However, we can all agree that the fact that my honourable friend Damien Egan MP was unable to visit a school in his constituency was a completely unacceptable situation, and I think it triggered, in part, the amendment. All Members of Parliament should be able to visit anywhere in their constituency without any fear of antisemitism or prejudice.
Ofsted has inspected the school in question and found no concerns, but it is also vital that we fully understand the circumstances of this case. That is why the Secretary of State has asked the trust to commission an independent investigation into what happened so that key lessons can be learned. The Secretary of State has also announced an independent national review to help ensure that all schools and colleges have the right systems, processes and support available to identify and respond effectively to antisemitism and related issues, as has been outlined. It is important that we do not pre-empt those reviews, and the DfE will of course continue to look at all schools and colleges across the board through the lens of the work they are doing.
On Amendment 243B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Storey, I am aware that the VAT status of all further education colleges is an area of continued interest for the sector. Colleges are unable to reclaim VAT incurred on their non-business activity, which includes providing free education. The Government operate VAT refund schemes for local authorities, including the schools they maintain, and for academies. These are variously designed to prevent local authorities needing to raise local taxes to pay for their VAT costs, and to support schools to leave local authority control by ensuring equal VAT treatment between schools and academies. Colleges do not meet the criteria for either scheme. In relation to business activity, colleges enjoy an exemption from VAT which means that they do not have to charge VAT to students but cannot recover it either. I stress that tax is a matter for the Chancellor, who takes decisions at fiscal events in the context of the broader public finances.
Amendment 243E stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Layard, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Macpherson, for laying out its content and for the work he does with my noble friend, who is regarded as a real champion in this area. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Storey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for their comments. The amendment seeks to ensure that every eligible young person aged 16 to 18 in England who wishes to start an apprenticeship at level 3 or below has the opportunity to do so.
This amendment is in the context of an incredible drop-off in the number of people starting apprenticeships, and the unforgivable rise in the number of young people who are NEET across the whole of the country. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Layard is such a champion of apprenticeships, and this Government share his ambition to support more of these opportunities for young people. For this reason, we are investing in young peoples’ futures and rebalancing apprenticeships back towards young people, who obviously have the most to gain from apprenticeships, regaining their confidence, against the backdrop of the fall in starts over the last decade.
Since we last spoke in Committee, we have announced our ambition to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships, backed by an additional £725 million of investment. We will expand foundation apprenticeships into sectors where young people are traditionally recruited, exploring occupations such as hospitality and retail. We are making £140 million available to pilot new approaches to better connect young people, especially those who are NEET, to local apprenticeship opportunities. From August, apprenticeship training will be completely free for SMEs who hire eligible young people aged 16 to 24.
We also continue to provide a range of financial support to encourage employers to offer apprenticeships to young people. We provide £1,000 to employers when they take on apprentices aged under 19, or eligible 19 to 24 year-olds. Employers receive additional payments of up to £2,000 for eligible foundation apprenticeships. Employers are not required to pay anything towards employees’ national insurance for all apprentices up to age 25.
However, we have to recognise that apprenticeships are jobs, first and foremost. We cannot compel an employer to hire—it must remain for employers to decide when they offer apprenticeships to meet their skills needs.
With those comments, I hope the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Lord Storey and Baroness Blake of Leeds
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, we have heard the concerns raised by noble Lords in Committee, and in the other House, about ensuring that kinship local offers meet the needs of kinship families. Having reflected, we agree that a duty to consult and publish a report of consultation would strengthen the expectations already set out in existing guidance and regulatory frameworks that local authorities should ensure that a kinship local offer remains relevant and responds to the voices of children, young people, and families.
This duty will support those local authorities which are yet to publish their first kinship local offer and ensure that they understand the needs of the kinship families living in their areas and develop a support offer that meets those needs. I beg to move.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, this is obviously an important issue to us. Although we welcome the Bill’s placing on a statutory footing the extension of virtual school head support to a wider group of children in kinship care, the positive impact of this will be significantly limited due to a lack of accompanying facilities and funding to support the VSH in discharging this duty. In particular, the continued restriction of pupil premium plus funding to only those kinship children currently or previously looked after, in effect, removes one of the most useful tools available to virtual schools to improve educational attainment and progress for groups of vulnerable learners.
In the halcyon days of local government funding and finance, our corporate head of children in care was the director of education, a remarkable man called Colin Hilton. He worked in Knowsley, a borough that neighbours mine, and he came to Liverpool in his role as director. Because money was plentiful, he had a pot of money that he could spend on the children in care as the corporate parent. That was life-changing for those children: they could go on trips and visits, and they could do all sorts of things that they cannot do now because money is still quite tight in local government.
In trying to see how to unlock that opportunity for young children, we looked at the pupil premium in schools and how it has, again, given opportunities to children and young people that perhaps would not have been available otherwise—head teachers and other teachers have that money to use. If we have a virtual school, we have to ask: what is the difference between that and a physical school?
Responding to similar recommendations made by the Education Committee last year, the Government confirmed that they have no plans to extend the pupil premium plus eligibility, because
“there is limited evidence to support such a change and no national data on the number or location of children in informal arrangements”
However, they committed to
“exploring the feasibility of collecting this data through the school census to build a stronger evidence base for future policy development”.
The evidence suggests that the needs and experience of children in all forms of kinship care are more similar than they are different. There are broadly comparable levels of special needs children and other children’s social care groups that are less likely to receive support through an education, health and care plan. Current support continues to undermine the common need, even if it is extended only to those in receipt of VSH support—namely, not to all children in informal kinship care. This amendment would help to harmonise the existing patchwork of support for kinship care children, based on the type of arrangement and journey into kinship care.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I preface my remarks by noting how much support the Government have given to the whole area of carers, as indeed did the previous Government. I look at my party and Ed Davey’s experience as a carer. I do not think you can imagine what it must be like for children who are in care. All the figures still suggest that there are real issues and real problems. I think we all get the Local Government Information Unit’s daily briefing. Yesterday, it reported a large survey of 100,000-plus children in care. One in four of them admitted to considering suicide, which is frightening.
Children in kinship care have all sorts of issues and problems, but we know that there is probably a much more stable situation and a more stable relationship. If that is successful, then we should be getting on with it. I hope that the Minister will say that in her reply. If this is a way of supporting those children even more and we can increase the numbers, let us not hang around; let us get on with it. I hope the Minister, in her reply, will tell us how quickly we are going to achieve that.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 31 and 32 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I start by welcoming the commitment to kinship care. It has not always been like this. I remember that, when we started this several years ago, there was a lot of resistance, a lot of suspicion. We had to keep coming back again and again to talk, as the noble Lord, Lord Storey, said, about outcomes for children and young people. This is what it is all about: better outcomes.
In those authorities where the rate of kinship care increases, the need for children to go into care is reduced. If it is possible to hold on to the resource that would have been used to pay for children going into care—which can be horrific, as we know—and reinvest that into family group conferencing and early intervention, we will be in a strong position.
There is still some way to go in convincing people that this is the right way to move forward. I acknowledge that, and that is why I hope that the noble Baroness, in particular, will understand our approach as we go on. I want to give some reassurance around this.
We are speaking about the desire to help more children grow up in safe, stable, loving homes within a family network. As I have said, we recognise that there is much room for improvement to ensure that there are not unnecessary barriers preventing this happening. We need also to improve the experience of being assessed as a kinship carer, which can be another barrier for some people.
As the noble Baroness rightly said, we spoke to Amendment 31 in detail in Committee, and followed up by letter explaining our position on Amendment 32. I reassure the noble Baroness that we do understand the concerns. That is informing the work that is happening with the Law Commission kinship review. We believe that this is the best vehicle for identifying the changes that we need to make to the current system. I know that there might be frustration about timing, but we must make sure that we get this absolutely right.
We engaged the Law Commission, recognising that a holistic review of the complex legislative landscape underpinning kinship was required and recognising its expertise in reforming the law. The concerns raised in this group of amendments will all be in scope, as the review will consider the legal processes and thresholds for assessment, approval and oversight of kinship carers.
At the conclusion of the review, the Law Commission will put forward recommendations for reform. I believe it is important that we do not try to pre-empt its findings without taking a holistic view of the system. We do not want to risk ineffective, piecemeal reform that may have unintended consequences.
For example, Amendment 31, which relates to the removal of requirements under fostering regulations for kinship carers, would undermine the role that the relevant regulations play in ensuring that children are placed in safe, stable and nurturing environments, by removing important safeguarding assessments with nothing to replace them. It would also remove a means for local authorities to identify the right support for carers so that they are not left to manage alone. Getting this balance right is essential. We strongly believe that part of the answer to the issues raised by the noble Baroness lies also in improving practice.
Lord Storey (LD)
Could the Minister give us an estimate, or guesstimate, of when she thinks the review will be completed?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I cannot give that exact information, other than to say that the consultation is starting, which means that it is going at pace. I understand the frustration and the need to get on with this. We all want to get on with this: it is an important piece in our overall ambition to make sure that we do the best for children and young people in this country.
Young People’s Media Literacy
Debate between Lord Storey and Baroness Blake of Leeds
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that further question. She is absolutely right that it is vital that pupils are taught about staying safe online, but we have to remember that we live in a digital age and it is imperative that we strike a balance, so that young people can access the benefits of social media while we continue to put their safety and well-being first. The curriculum and assessment review is looking to see how it can widen the curriculum and the offer, in this specific area and all the areas that contribute to the well-being of young people and emerging adults. Of course, this will lead to curriculum requirements, and any information on funding to support this will be available after the review is finally published.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, the Minister will be aware that a Select Committee, ably chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, is doing a piece of work on media literacy. It is convenient that we will have not only the curriculum review but this piece of work as well. What do the Government think should be their number one priority?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
For me, the Government and, I think, all of us here, the number one priority is the safety of young people. We have to make sure that all the measures we bring in keep children and young people at the centre of everything we are doing. We talk a lot about systems, structures and strategies, but let us focus on their needs and hear their voices too in contributing to what we need to do.