Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Excerpts

2nd reading
Thursday 1st May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, if the Bill is to succeed in breaking down barriers to opportunity and severing the link between background and success, let me give the Government a warning from Scotland. These aims have also been a much-publicised priority of the Scottish Government. However, over the past decade, despite a 13% increase in funding, the SNP’s centralising of control has seen falling educational standards, as evidenced—as other noble Lords have said—by the OECD’s PISA league tables. What went wrong?

The amalgamation of the inspectorate with Learning and Teaching Scotland to form Education Scotland removed its independence; it became answerable to government. There is no bulwark against falling standards and no voice to be raised against ineffective teaching methods, inadequate curriculum content or restrictive curriculum structures.

The implementation of our new curriculum for excellence—as it is called—was ill thought out. One of its original purposes was to broaden the secondary school curriculum, but evidence reveals that students in S4—the equivalent of GCSE level—are studying fewer subjects, and enrolment in non-compulsory subjects such as modern languages and expressive arts continues to decline. Choice has been restricted. Most damningly, the attainment gap between Scotland’s richest and poorest schools has increased.

An attempt to give all children in Scotland a “named person” was ruled unlawful by the Supreme Court because it breached the right to private and family life. The Bill is in danger of making some of the same mistakes.

In contrast, I have looked at England’s increasingly improving and diverse education system with a degree of envy. We do not have the choice of academy schools. There is only one mainstream school in Scotland not run by a local authority—Jordanhill—which consistently tops the league tables, even this weekend. However, houses in Jordanhill’s catchment area are some of the most expensive for any Scottish school, doing nothing to close the attainment gap.

I am also, therefore, concerned at the constraints on academies in this Bill, and specifically the proposals for qualified teacher status. There is a difference between a qualified teacher and a competent one, and if we want to attract people into the profession, the ability to “try before you buy” will be lost. Perhaps an amendment to limit the time that unqualified teachers can teach in schools to, for example, two years could be helpful. By then, both parties should know whether it is right and whether it is worth the effort and expense of qualifying.

Other issues that concern me are the implications of provisions in this Bill for SEND children, and in particular, the lack of appropriate school places and the consequences that this has for families. The powers in Clause 30, where parents have to obtain a local authority’s consent to remove their child from school, allow the corporate parent to erode parental responsibility and override the rights of parents and families to decide what is best for their children.

With such a large Bill and such a crowded list, however, there is not an inordinate amount of time to go into too many details, which I will look forward to addressing in Committee. Having given my warning from Scotland, I dearly hope I make it in time for the last flight home tonight.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I rise very briefly in support of the proposed new purpose clause from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. This is an enormous Bill on children’s well-being and schools. It could be two enormous Bills. What we have seen in this House with many other Bills is that, when we have an enormous Bill, all sorts of people and organisations want to hang things on it like Christmas tree baubles and it becomes unworkable, so I welcome this proposed new purpose clause to give us some sort of sustainable and impactful legislation, hopefully, at the end.

Nobody has mentioned children with special educational needs, which, as the noble Baroness knows, is my special interest in this. I support the proposed new purpose clause because it brings us back to the interests of all children, including those with profound needs and disabilities, who are very difficult to accommodate in the usual school system. We are not alone in that. I can point to studies from Sweden, Denmark and all across the world about the difficulty of grappling with this challenge.

Profound disability remains strongly associated with poor educational outcomes. We know from experience—although sadly not from data, because we do not collect it—that these children achieve lower overall grades than children without profound disabilities. This cannot be put down just to people having a learning disability. For example, only one in two children with CP has a learning disability. I know that there are children with high-functioning cognitive abilities who have been accommodated in mainstream schools throughout their entire lives, but when it comes to choosing GCSE subjects they are offered only a very restricted choice. Why is that deemed acceptable?

Studies have shown that parents of children with profound disabilities lack confidence in their local authority’s ability to make suitable arrangements for their children. The two sides look at it from very different perspectives. Parents view the system as being obstructive, inconsistent and unaccountable. Provision often tends to reflect what local authorities are able to provide. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, mentioned, it is vital that health and education professionals come together in this space and form expertise around what the child concerned requires to have the best possible life chances. As families wait for EHCPs to be agreed and as children develop and needs change, this is a fluctuating and ever-changing system.

If the Bill can do one thing to remove those barriers, which often are not understood by educational providers, it will improve the safety and well-being of children. But we need to remember, which is why I support this proposed new purpose clause, that the Bill covers all children with all abilities, whether or not they are in school and whether or not local authorities can provide the services they need.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 19th June 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Benjamin (LD)]

My Lords, Amendments 168, 228, 376 and 377 concern child performances and sporting activities. I declare my interest as per the register.

On Amendment 168, there is no system in place to safeguard and protect children’s earnings from financial abuse when they are engaged in performances, paid sport or modelling activities. Other countries, such as the US and numerous EU territories, have legislation in place to ensure that employers pay a percentage of the child’s earnings into a trust account where earnings are protected by the state until the child reaches the age of 18. We lag behind the times with this provision, and safeguarding and protection are long overdue.

Local authorities can add stipulations to licences—for example, that 80% must be paid into a child’s savings account or 50% used for the child’s benefit. However, these conditions differ throughout Great Britain and are sadly ineffective, as a parent can access and use the child’s money and not necessarily for the child’s benefit or in their interest. Local authorities themselves are concerned about how best to protect these earnings but, sadly, there is no system or law in place to support this.

My amendment would ensure that a small percentage of the child’s earnings is held in trust until the child reaches adulthood and is not accessible by a parent, guardian or the child themselves. If this amendment becomes law, trust accounts will protect the child’s earnings until they reach the age of 18. Income will be protected and any tax liabilities more easily calculated. As we enter a world of streaming platforms, social influencers and headline child stars, these earnings can be in the millions of pounds and we have a responsibility to ensure that all children, regardless of which local authority they reside in, have effective means to safeguard their future and their earnings.

Amendment 228 deals with a child not appearing on the school register. The Bill as it stands fails to recognise the unique needs of children working within the entertainment industry, where many are educated in flexi-alternative provisions. The safeguarding elements of this pre-approval to be absent from school have already been scrutinised by the licensing authority and the education provisions are accounted for in the conditions of the licence period.

What is proposed in the Bill is the opposite of what should be a positive. This life-changing experience for a child is regarded as a negative absence, not only for the child but for the school. It will not record the beneficial reason for their absence—merely another day missed from school, which negatively affects both the child and the school’s record and could affect its Ofsted standing. This unique opportunity should be celebrated, not penalised.

When the child is granted a licence to perform within Great Britain, the Children and Young Persons Act 1963, combined with the Children (Performances and Activities) (England) Regulations 2014, make provision for the approval of education to be shared with local authorities. Requiring this information not only to be carefully considered and shared but then duplicated and, as often happens, amended at the last minute due to the requirements of the production, would divert valuable resources away from the safeguarding of young people and the most vulnerable children.

The Bill’s current requirement to include children within the register with pre-approved flexi-education from licensing authorities would divert attention from the very children the register is intending to capture. It will slow down the process of licensing children to perform. Local authorities will require information not available at the time of a licence application to add children to the register. The licensing process, in reality, is evolving and live; it is where industry collaborates with licensing authorities. It is imperative that the process works for all parties involved.

Amendment 376 concerns a body of persons approval, or BOPA, which is in the wrong place. It currently sits within Part 6 of the regulations, which targets only performance abroad rather than performance in the UK. My amendment highlights the need for a licensing authority that approves a performance abroad or exempts a performance within the UK to notify the local authority in which the child lives. This will ensure that the local authorities are fully aware of the children who are performing, to finally join up the dots and offer a working solution using the technological advances of 2025. This in turn will help safeguard a child from overperforming and not receiving the regulated overnight rest breaks, and give consideration for meaningful education.

At present, local authorities are aware of performances by children in their area only if they have granted the licence. Exemptions granted under a body of persons approval, or licences granted by a magistrate’s court for children to perform abroad, are not shared with the local authority where the child resides. However, under the Bill, they are expected to note on the register information that is not being shared. There is currently no legal requirement or process for a magistrate’s court to inform the child’s local authority that they are missing school under the child employment abroad order, so it will not be aware of the child’s involvement in a performance.

Amendment 376 requires licensing authorities that approve a licence, or authorise a performance under a body of persons approval, to notify the local authority in which the child resides. We have a duty to protect our children, regardless of where they perform, and the current system requires urgent consideration of we license children for paid and unpaid performances, to ensure that we have an effective, joined-up approach.

Finally, Amendment 377 calls for a review of the child performance regulations 2014. Since the regulations were revised in 2014, we have seen a substantial change to the entertainment industry, with streaming platforms, new film studios and diverse opportunities for children to be involved and perform. The industry is fast-paced and must adapt to new technologies. The very interpretation of the performance regulations across each local authority makes it hard to take a balanced approach when multiple children from different areas are involved in the same production. Children performing in the UK from other countries, which have their own regulations and union rules that must be followed alongside our laws, result in a mixture of regulations that do not always have the best interests of children at heart.

In 2014, the then Government agreed to revisit these regulations after 10 years, some of which I was instrumental in securing. It is important to acknowledge that, to move forward in the best way to support all children to partake in performance, there needs to be a period of reflection to stay current with an ever-evolving industry. Would the Government commit to review the child performance regulations to include the necessary improvements needed?

Our world has changed, and we have to adapt or face being left behind, otherwise children will miss out on potentially life-changing experiences and opportunities. We have an opportunity, by agreeing to my amendments, to make a positive change for children and young people in performing arts and sporting activities. I look forward to working with the Government to make these changes.

[Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Lucas’s Amendment 155. It is a great honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and I agree with everything that she said; I therefore also support her.

What prompted me to look at this space were the government Amendments 157 and 158 on the employment of children in England and Wales and in Scotland. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, that they do not sufficiently cover the difficulties and discrepancies between what is in the Bill and the on-the-ground opportunities for children in the performing arts. I was especially concerned by the timing restrictions in proposed new Clause 2(1)(d)—as well as in the proposed new paragraphs (e), (f), (g) and (h)—which requires children not to work before 7 am or after 8 pm. The Minister is shaking her head, so clarification from her that this does not apply to children in the performing arts would be great.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, about the opportunities for children to take part in the performing arts. My first pay packet came as a performer with Scottish Ballet at the age of nine, which introduced me to all sorts of career opportunities that I would not have had in school, including becoming a choreologist. I would therefore welcome anything to clarify that children are encouraged to take up these opportunities. I would be very grateful if the Minister could clarify the licensing agreement for performing arts and children being paid as performers. I look forward to hearing her answer.