SEND Provision: Derbyshire

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The Government need to grip this issue across the country. Unfortunately, we understand his plight only too well in Derbyshire.

Parents and carers talk about barriers at every stage of the process and about how they are “ignored” by an “unresponsive” council. A big part of our challenge in fixing the foundations of SEND provision is, of course, funding. That made it all the more shocking to learn of the SEND budget left unspent by Derbyshire county council. In a debate in the Chamber on 23 April 2024, my hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins) highlighted that of £17.5 million received since 2019, only £1.5 million had been spent. That is nothing short of a scandal—£16 million unspent. That money was specifically allocated to create new school places for children with special educational needs and disabilities.

Derbyshire county council claimed that it could not rush the allocation of the funds, but we are talking about six years—children will have started and ended their secondary school education in that time. What it has managed to spend, however, is about half a million pounds on two consultants for strategic help on children’s services. The families I have spoken to say that, despite that, they have seen no improvement. They say that had the council just engaged with parents, carers and educators, they would have received a wealth of advice for free.

Our children and their families are paying the price. These children are missing education, being labelled as “disruptive” and suffering from poor mental health. While Derbyshire county council was failing to create the new, much-needed and funded SEND places, my constituent Chris Spencer’s son was missing school. Chris told me that his son had been assessed as needing a place in a SEND special school but that none were available. His son was missing out on vital education, making friends and the support he needed. Without a school place, Chris was caring full time for his son at home, making it impossible for him to go to work. He told me:

“I want a job…I want to work, but I can’t”.

Derbyshire county council not only failed to supply Chris’s son with a promised school place but issued him with two fines for non-attendance. The first was withdrawn by the council after I intervened on Chris’s behalf, but the second went to court, where the judge threw out the case. It should not come to this—for an MP and a judge to have to intervene—before anything is done.

I am afraid that that story is just one of dozens. Angie Hardy, another constituent of mine, after years of fighting on behalf of her three sons, each with SEND, was still waiting on an EHCP, an annual review and the much-needed transport that had been promised. As a result, one of her sons has not been able to attend school since February 2022—yet another child missing out on education and the support they need to succeed.

Many other parents talked about resorting to legal challenges. They have found tribunals and judicial reviews not only extremely stressful, but with legal aid solicitors now so hard to come by—another victim of Tory austerity, I am afraid, and one that the Justice Committee, of which I am a member, fully understands—extremely costly. That is a common experience. One mother told me that

“judges are awarding places now, not the local authority”.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I have been supporting parents in Derby North who currently face a wait of more than a year for their children’s SEND tribunals, causing agony as they are left in limbo. We know that the historical lack of funding for local authorities, suitable school places and educational psychologists has contributed to the delays. Does my hon. Friend agree that the delays are yet another example of a SEND system that, as the Education Secretary said, had been

“neglected to the point of crisis”?

[Linsey Farnsworth]

I agree. Crisis—a word that I have already used in this debate—is what we are facing right across the country. I am very concerned about that. In Derbyshire we face that very challenge, as well as all the additional challenges of the systemic problems in the county council.

As high as the legal costs for families can be, the emotional costs are still higher. All parents and carers want the best for their children and I found it impossible not to feel for families who, time and again, talked about being exhausted from constantly fighting: for timely, accurate diagnoses and care plans; for the little provision that is available; and even for the transport needed to get their children to school. Many families are at breaking point. They say that it should not be so hard, and they are right.

The Conservatives at Derbyshire county council have acknowledged the failings and issued an apology. That is a necessary first step, but it is far from sufficient. It has been five months since Ofsted uncovered widespread and systemic failings. Although the council claims to be making improvements, the pace of change is far too slow.

Only two weeks ago, fellow Derbyshire Labour MPs and I met representatives of the National Association of Headteachers. The stories that they told mirrored the frustrations and heartache experienced by the hundreds of parents and carers who have reached out to us in desperation. They told us that they, too, face a daily fight to be heard by Derbyshire county council. Too often, their emails go unanswered, they are made to jump through bureaucratic hoops to access the support that should be in place, and the revolving door of leadership has led to confusion and uncertainty.

While the leaders and the plans might change, we were told say that there have been no tangible improvements. EHCPs, which should be processed within 20 weeks—a long time for any parent to wait—can take more than 50 weeks, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson) said. That is practically a year. Not only do educators not feel confident that their concerns will be heard; they fear petty reprisals. More worrying still, they said that the lack of funding is affecting not only their most vulnerable pupils but all pupils, as class sizes increase and teaching capacity cannot keep up.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

Shortly after Christmas, a person came to see me who had given evidence to the IICSA inquiry and who was deeply upset by their perception that their experience, and the experience of others like them, was being used as a political football. They were outraged to find that the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry had not yet been implemented. In this room, my role is to represent them. Their call is not for another public inquiry but for the implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry that has already been done.

I find it really disappointing that such serious matters are being used as a political football. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East made a valid point about the degree to which these issues were not addressed until very recently. I ask rhetorically: would this new clause even have been tabled were it not for pot-stirring tweets by Elon Musk? I very much doubt it. I therefore think this Committee should do the job we are here to do. We should scrutinise this Bill and not use it as an opportunity to play games with the lives of victims and survivors.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for his incredible experience and work in this area. I rise to speak about new clause 15, and I hope I can be of service to the Committee, having spent the past seven years of my work as a barrister serving on a public inquiry. I went straight from that to representing a constituency in Derby, the city that was the subject of the first local inquiry into grooming gangs in 2010. Those crimes are despicable and must be rooted out in Derby and elsewhere. Without the bravery of the girls in Derby, those crimes would not have been punished.

I am committed to supporting the considerable action that the Government are taking to ensure that others are punished, and victims and survivors protected and supported. I am really proud to sit on this Bill Committee, which will give the next generation of children and young people in Derby better protection and life chances. The Education Secretary rightly described this as the “single biggest piece” of children’s safeguarding legislation in a generation. I will seek to set out why new clause 15 does nothing to contribute to that aim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Could the hon. Lady say how many different places it looked at?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will come to that. First, I make the point that I have the report in my hands; it is an inch thick, printed double-sided and it is nearly 200 pages. That is the specific inquiry into organised networks. Its contents are horrific, and I hope that by the end of my contribution, we will cease to hear the shadow Minister referring to the fact that it “barely touches” on grooming gangs.

For clarity, organised networks that conduct child sexual exploitation, as anyone who has carried out work in child protection will know, are grooming gangs. Organised networks are defined in this report as

“two or more individuals…who are known to (or associated with) one another”.

Section C.3 of the report sets out carefully why that definition was used. In comparison, new clause 15 seeks to define grooming gangs as a group of at least three adult males. As we saw in the convictions of women involved in grooming gangs in Rotherham, Newcastle and elsewhere, involvement in grooming gangs is not limited to men. Sadly, several of the cases mentioned in the investigation into grooming gangs make it clear that they are not always adults, as older children and teenagers can also be involved in grooming.

A further justification for another inquiry, as we heard from the shadow Minister, was that the previous inquiry covered just half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated—namely, the areas covered by Durham county council, the City and County of Swansea council, Warwickshire county council, St Helens council in Merseyside, the London borough of Tower Hamlets and Bristol city council. The shadow Minister knows, I assume, that that was a deliberate sampling of local authorities from across England and Wales, and they were selected not because grooming gangs operated there—I do not think that was necessarily even known at the time of selection—but to consider a range of features including size, demography, geography and social characteristics. It was to illustrate different policies, practices and performance. It was a deliberate choice not to look again at areas like Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford, which had already been the subject of independent investigation. Sampling, and looking at particular case studies like this, is very common and good practice in public inquiries. The fact that there were cases of child sexual exploitation by gangs in all six of the case study areas clearly indicated how common and pervasive this disgusting crime is.

On Second Reading, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), implied that there was new information that child sexual exploitation takes place in many areas. He said:

“We now believe that as many as 50 towns could have been affected”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 564.]

But as the previous specific inquiry made clear three years ago, on page 4, when it comes to grooming gangs:

“Any denial of the scale of child sexual exploitation—either at national level or locally in England and Wales—must be challenged.”

In looking at whether new clause 15 is a rerun of questions IICSA already considered in the previous specific inquiry into grooming gangs, it is helpful to cross-refer the contents of new clause 15 with the scope of the previous investigations into grooming gangs, which is set out on page 148 of this report. New clause 15(2)(a) seeks an inquiry into grooming gangs to

“identify common patterns of behaviour and offending”.

But the scope of the previous grooming gangs inquiry states that it will investigate “the nature” of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs.

New clause 15(2)(b) and (c) seek another inquiry to look at the

“type, extent and volume of crimes”

and “the number of victims”. The specific inquiry looked at the “extent” of sexual exploitation.

New clause 15(2)(e) seeks a new inquiry to identify failings by

“(i) police,

(ii) local authorities,

(iii) prosecutors,

(iv) charities,

(v) political parties,

(vi) local…government,

(vii) healthcare providers…or

(viii) other agencies or bodies”.

But the grooming gangs inquiry investigated and considered the institutional responses to the sexual exploitation of children, and that specific inquiry also examined the extent to which

“children who were subjected to child sexual exploitation were known to local authorities and other public authorities such as law enforcement agencies, schools and/or the NHS”.

It also examined the extent to which

“relevant public authorities…effectively identified the risk of child sexual exploitation in communities and took action to prevent it”.

It examined the extent to which

“the response of the constituent parts of the criminal justice system was appropriate in cases of child sexual exploitation”.

The inquiry into grooming gangs heard from complainants, academics, local authorities, police officers, voluntary sector representatives, Government officials and representatives from victim support and campaign groups—a list that looks very similar to that set out at new clause 15(2)(e).

New clause 15(2)(g) seeks to “identify good practice” in protecting children. Was that left out of the previous inquiry? No, because paragraph 2.5 of the scope of the investigation makes it clear that the inquiry would also examine

“effective strategies…implemented to prevent child sexual exploitation in the future, and to monitor the safety of vulnerable children including missing children”.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston accused the Government of not wanting to

“hear the voices of the victims.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 951.].

The new clause compounds the last Government’s crime of not listening to the victims when they had the chance to implement the recommendations of the specific national grooming gangs inquiry and the wider IICSA recommendations.

What new clause 15—the hon. Gentleman’s blueprint for a new inquiry—does not include is any requirement to look at the extent to which recommendations in previous reports and reviews were implemented by relevant public authorities at national and local levels. That requirement was in the previous grooming gangs inquiry, which was an attempt to build on learning rather than to be a rerun of previous inquiries. The previous grooming gangs inquiry notes that more than 400 previous recommendations were considered in this, as well as those arising from other recent reports and inquiries. This would be an obvious inclusion in any future inquiry, unless we did not want to draw attention to the previous Government’s failure to carry out a single one of the recommendations of the specific investigation into grooming gangs, or in the wider independent inquiry into child sexual abuse more broadly.

The three main functions of public inquiries are to investigate what happened, why it happened, and what can be done to prevent it happening again. Inquiries can make recommendations. What they cannot do is implement those recommendations; that is our job. Professor Alexis Jay, who knows more about this than anyone on this Committee, does not call for another national inquiry. She says that a new inquiry would cause further delay.

Having spent seven of my 17 years as a barrister on a public inquiry—although not into grooming gangs or the broader IICA—I can say quite forcefully that there is a universal principle here. Public inquiries cost time and enormous amounts of public money, but the biggest tab that they run up is in the hope that they give to victims—the hope that what they suffered will not be suffered in future by others. We must pay our debt to the victims by fully responding to the recommendations and implementing them where we can. If we call for inquiry after inquiry along the same lines, we are undermining the whole system of public inquiries, including public trust in them and public tolerance for the resources of the state that they demand. Therefore, rather than the gesture politics of rerunning an inquiry without the evidence and data that we need, it is the Government’s approach that makes sense, with Baroness Louise Casey’s audit to fill in the gaps that have already been identified by the previous inquiry.

This Government are setting up a new victims and survivors panel not just to guide Ministers on the design, delivery and implementation of plans on IICSA, but to produce wider work around child sexual exploitation and abuse. In the policing and crime Bill, they are making it mandatory to report abuse and will make it an offence to fail to report, or to cover up, child sexual abuse, as well as introducing further measures to tackle those organising online child sex abuse. They are legislating to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences. They are already drawing up a duty of candour as part of the long-awaited Hillsborough law. And they are overhauling the information and evidence that is gathered on child sexual abuse and exploitation to implement the first recommendation of IICSA on a single core dataset on child abuse and protection.

New clause 15(2)(d) seeks to identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs. Sections B.5 and H.5 of the 2022 inquiry into grooming gangs identified the widespread failure to record the ethnicity of perpetrators and victims and the inconsistency of definitions in the data, which meant that the limited research available relied on poor-quality data.

Recommendation 5 from the report in February 2022 relates to child sexual exploitation data and states that the data must include

“the sex, ethnicity and disability of both the victim and perpetrator”.

In the final list of IICSA recommendations from October 2022, it was the first recommendation—a single core set of data. We do not have a core dataset, and the ethnicity data that was published in November from police forces has been found to be haphazard, because there is not a proper system for collecting data. It is this Government who have committed to gathering and publishing new ethnicity data, and it is this Government who are providing backing for local inquiries that can delve into local detail and deliver more locally relevant answers and change than a lengthy national inquiry of the type that I was involved in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. This is an incredibly serious issue, and we should not be introducing anything that might inadvertently mislead. The Government control the time of the House of Commons. This Bill should probably have been two Bills to begin with; there are two distinct subjects in part 1 and part 2, but, for some reason, they were put together. There was nothing to stop the Government, at any point, from separating out parts of the Bill and reintroducing them immediately into the House of Commons—they literally control the timetable. On the Order Paper today, there was a statement on the business of the House. The Government can change the time and change what is considered in the House of Commons as they choose.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine if the wrecking amendment—

[Damian Hinds]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will not, because I am nearly finished—the right hon. Gentleman will then be able to speak about whatever he wants. Grabbing at headlines to call for an inquiry to address the same questions already asked in a national inquiry at the expense of a Bill that will protect children—

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will not. The hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity to speak. I am nearly finished.

It is important to imagine the case had Conservative colleagues been successful—new clause 15 is a weak echo of that reckless shout for attention on Second Reading, and a shameful reminder. Alongside all the provisions in the Bill, which they agree will keep children safer, they should get behind the actions that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Safeguarding are driving on the issue of grooming gangs—real action, which means a great deal to me and many others in the Committee. Knowing the horrific abuse that girls from my city have gone through, I am hugely thankful for those actions. Opposition Members in Committee should not just withdraw the new clause, but apologise for risking protections for children by recklessly chasing headlines in this way.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for her frankly masterful navigation through the facts. This moment demands the facts—not misrepresentation and the dismissal of previous inquiries, but the gravitas and experience that she has brought to the debate. I believe that has kept the Committee on the track that it is meant to be on.

I simply make the observation against the new clause that this Bill and this moment require leadership. Leadership looks like getting on with making the changes that we have heard about in great detail. The subject has already been thoroughly and fully investigated, with recommendations made by a leading expert. It is time to make those changes to our country, to our law and to our services, first, to allow us to reflect on the past, and the report does that, and, secondly, so that we can get on with catching those who continue to do such things—and that is the horror of it. We are not just talking about something historical. Without doubt, such things are going on as we speak.

It is time to ensure that the whole of Government work together so that our law enforcement agencies are resourced to catch those who perpetrate such disgusting crimes. Crucially, this is the moment to ensure that we prevent them happening in the future. Several of the report’s 20 recommendations are already in train and implementation should be the absolute priority.

That is what leading looks like at this moment, but when it comes to following I am afraid that I agree with the observation made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Some people have become a little bedazzled by social media suggestion and innuendo from certain individuals, wherever they are in the world. Opposition Members should be honest about it: such individuals have absolutely no genuine interest in the victims whose sufferings are known, but have their own political agenda to follow. They use their social media platform to do that, and none of it moves us any closer to doing what we need to do, which is to reflect, to catch the criminals and to prevent such crimes in future.

Those who are able to separate fact from trend will know that the urgent priority at this moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North so thoughtfully set out, is to act. Anything that becomes a distraction from that should not be supported.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member assist me in identifying where the new clause makes it clear that it is only in relation to children, as opposed to anyone in our schools?

[Damian Hinds]

Can the hon. Member please explain what she means?

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

“Are you going to ban teachers from carrying phones?”, I think is what she means.

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am grateful—

[The Chair]

Order. Can we not have this back and forth across the Committee?

[Neil O’Brien]

To answer the question that the hon. Member for Derby North asked directly, subsection (2)(b) says the policy

“is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate.”

I think this is—

[Catherine Atkinson]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

You cannot intervene on an intervention.

[Damian Hinds]

I am very grateful—

[Catherine Atkinson]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

Go on.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Does the right hon. Member agree that when we are looking at proposed new clauses in Committee, it is absolutely fundamental that what is written is capable of making meaningful legislation?

[Damian Hinds]

Yes, of course; we are legislating, and that is the case. It is also the case that, in my experience in Committee, the Government side never just accept an amendment put forward by the Opposition or another opposition party—or indeed by their own Back Benchers. If that has ever happened in modern history, it has yet to come across my bows. What we do is we debate what we are trying to do. If the new clause—which was drafted with expert help from the House of Commons—was accepted by the Government, as I very much hope it will be, they would without doubt say, “Oh, well, you need to change this, that and the other, and we’d do it slightly differently.” They would then bring forward their own Government new clause, and we would then vote on that on Report. We can have an elongated discussion about this, but I would rather just get to the end of what I was going to say about banning mobile phones in schools, and then—I believe I am right in saying—the hon. Lady may also speak. That is probably the easiest way to do it.

The increasing mental ill health of children and young people should be a matter of very serious concern for all of us. We should remember that it is something that is mirrored in other countries as well. Now, it is entirely scientifically invalid to infer from a correlation of two things—the increasing prevalence of social media and electronica, and the increasing prevalence of mental ill health—that one caused the other. Even if we cannot find any other potential cause that would have affected all those countries in the same way over the same timeframe, it is still scientifically invalid to directly infer causality. Logic has its limits, and I know a few people who seriously contest the idea that the spread and use of, and the very high amounts of time devoted to, mobile phones and social media has been a significant causal factor in that.

There are lots of different ways that one might address that and there are lots of things going on. The Online Safety Act 2023 was a landmark piece of legislation, and how it now gets implemented by Ofcom is very important. There is also the private Member’s Bill from the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister)—I think he became a Parliamentary Private Secretary overnight, so we hope there is still a good future for that private Member’s Bill. That is one part of what is going on. I also mentioned Australia, where there is a ban of some type to come in.

The school phones ban also plays a part. To be clear, it is not a ban on children carrying a mobile phone of any sort, brand or functionality to and from home and school. Nor does it preclude children who need to use a phone because of special educational needs, medical conditions, monitoring requirements or some other reasons from carrying one. Those things can be determined locally by the school. It is not a panacea—far from it—but it will make a difference in schools.

It is often said that mobile phones are already banned in the vast majority of schools, so a ban is not needed and will not have any effect. That is true to an extent. There are virtually no schools without policy. Clearly no one is allowed to whip out a phone and make a call in the middle of a maths lesson—in fact, we never actually see teenagers use a phone to make a call—and there are going to be some rules to some extent. In the Internet Matters survey, 43% of schools reported having an “out of sight” policy. It is true that lots of schools allow phone use in breaks and at lunch—I know that because I visited a lot of schools where kids had been using their phones in breaks and at lunch.

There is sometimes a bit of a hierarchy in how people assess these bans. One gets a slightly different assessment of the situation from Ministers, headteachers, classroom teachers and kids. According to the Youth Endowment Fund survey, which is huge—I think it surveys 7,500 13 to 17-year-olds—53% of children said they used mobile phones in break times, and one in six said they used their phone in lessons.

Having a national policy does not solve everything—kids still break rules sometimes—but it does make it easier for everyone. As I say, it does not preclude carrying a phone to and from school, and it does not preclude children with whatever additional needs from carrying them, but it supports leaders and teachers in what they are doing. It also makes it clear to parents that they cannot contact children during the school day—they can, but they do so through the school office, just as would have been the case in the old days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said, a national policy would set a firm norm.

More widely, the Government will have to return again and again to all the issues around online safety, social media use and the use of electronics, and they must study the mental health aspects in more detail. However, I suggest that, pending proof—the smoking example speaks to this—it is necessary to take a precautionary approach. When we put things in the hands of children, we tend not to say, “Let’s wait to see if it’s dangerous”; we test them first to make sure they are safe. I hope also that the Minister can speak with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care about the provision of more NHS guidance on safe and reasonable levels of mobile phone use for children’s early brain development.

I have gone on a long time, and much longer than I anticipated. I will stop there.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

That is a good point. Although we have to resource our schools properly to ensure appropriate iPads and computers that can be used, we would not want the situation the hon. Member described to continue either. We must ensure that schools are resourced.

We have talked about disruption in classrooms, and 20% of teachers said that the unauthorised use of mobile phones was one of the main causes. However, chatter and not sitting still accounted for 80% and 75% respectively, and disrespect to other pupils was much higher than the use of mobile phones. When asked whether a whole-school ban would improve learning, 18% felt that it would, but actually 57% felt that a class size reduction would improve behaviour much more. We need to give our schools the autonomy to have that conversation with their communities and to involve their students. We have student councils and we have parent groups, and we must involve them in the conversations on mobile phone use in schools so that we can teach digital wellness now and for the future.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Call me a lawyer—that increasingly seems to be a term of abuse in this place—but I want to be clear that voting for this new clause would be voting to enable the banning of adults, including staff, parents and visitors, from using and carrying mobile phones in schools. I thought that scrutinising line by line was literally our job in this Committee.

[Stephen Morgan]

New clause 48 would prohibit the use and carrying of certain devices during the school day. I thank the shadow Minister and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East, for Portsmouth North and for Derby North for their contributions, as well as the hon. Member for Twickenham and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which Members have contributed to the debate on the new clause.

We recognise the negative impact that mobile phones can have on children’s learning. Every pupil deserves to learn in a safe, calm classroom, and we will always support our hard-working and dedicated teachers to make that happen. That is why the Government’s “Mobile phones in schools” guidance is already clear that schools should prohibit the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, break times and lunch time. It is for school leaders to develop and implement a policy, while ensuring that they adhere to the public sector equality duty and the Equality Act 2010.

New clause 48 lacks the flexibility required to accommodate some individual needs, such as a mobile phone as an adaptation for a disabled child. We know that schools are already prohibiting the use of mobile phones, including through outright bans. Even before guidance was published, around 97% of all schools in England had policies restricting mobile phone use in some way. There are a range of ways in which a mobile phone-free school can be achieved. We trust headteachers to develop a mobile phone policy that works for their own schools and for the school community.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine McKinnell]

Obviously, the purpose of the clause is to ensure that those decisions are made independently by the schools adjudicator. I think the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that he is objecting to an independent adjudication on these matters, which is entirely the purpose of this legislative provision.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

We recently saw a case of a ghost school in Nottingham, funded under the previous Government, built but then never opened, because only two pupils applied to join. Does the Minister agree that that is an example of the current system failing?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, it is really important that we have good schools available to every child in every local area. That is clearly a challenge. A significant number of children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, are not having their needs met within their local school, and they consequently have to travel as a result. As constituency MPs, we have to deal with the families who get in touch because they cannot get a place at their local school and the challenges around that. It is clearly in the interests of everybody that we have a system that manages that, but also that we have an adjudicator that takes an independent view and decides on what would be the right outcome in a particular circumstance.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine McKinnell]

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

As I am sure colleagues will be all too aware, homelessness levels are far too high. Homelessness can have a devastating impact on those affected. The Government are determined to address that and deliver long-term solutions to get us back on track to ending homelessness. Care leavers are particularly vulnerable to becoming homeless, with the number of care leavers aged 18 to 20 becoming homeless rising by a shocking 54% in the past five years. Young care leavers are also more likely to be found to have become intentionally homeless by local authorities, meaning that local authorities are not required to secure them settled accommodation.

This Government take corporate parenting seriously, and recognise the key role that local authorities play in providing care, stability and support to care leavers—like any parent would. We are introducing the new clause to ensure that, where a council is their corporate parent, no care leaver can be found to have become intentionally homeless. This is an essential step to ensure that those care leavers are not held back by their start in life and get the support they need to build a secure and successful future. I therefore recommend that the new clause be added to the Bill.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Become, the charity for children in care and young care leavers, strongly welcomes the new clause, as does the YMCA, which supports around 1,000 care leavers a year with housing.

In its written evidence to the Committee, Become pointed to a freedom of information request that it submitted to all tier 1 local authorities in England last year, which showed real variation in whether they disapplied homelessness intentionality assessments for care leavers. Become provided examples of hearing from care-experienced young people who have been assessed as intentionally homeless for moving away to university, not keeping in touch with their personal advisers or turning down offers of accommodation that was not appropriate for them. That contradicts local authorities’ duties as corporate parents, and contributes to the disproportionate risk of homelessness that care-experienced young people are subject to.

I thank Become for its evidence, which provides powerful insight and an argument in support of the new clause. I hugely welcome it being added to the Bill.

[Damian Hinds]

Will the Minister confirm that the new clause will also apply to the small group of young people who are leaving the young justice system and returning to their home area?

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting)

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

Sir Martyn Oliver gave us a good example of how the current freedoms are used on our first day of evidence. He said:

“In the past, I have brought in professional sportspeople to teach alongside PE teachers, and they have run sessions. Because I was in Wakefield, it was rugby league: I had rugby league professionals working with about a quarter of the schools in Wakefield at one point.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 49, Q108.]

When he said that, I thought about when I was being taught rugby league not far away in Huddersfield, and how much we would have loved it if the professionals had come from Fartown to teach us. We were never told what the rules of rugby league were, nor was it revealed to us that there was a different type of rugby. It would have been amazing to have the professionals with us. That is just one example of how schools use non-qualified teacher status teachers in a brilliant way to bring in people who would otherwise never be in state schools.

Former headteacher David Thomas told us on the same day:

“I have concerns about limiting the number of people with unqualified teacher status who are not working towards qualified teacher status.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 92, Q199.]

He also said:

“I have worked with some fantastic people—generally late-career people in shortage subjects who want to go and give back in the last five to 10 years of their career—who would not go through some of the bureaucracy associated with getting qualified teacher status but are absolutely fantastic and have brought wonderful things to a school and to a sector. I have seen them change children’s lives.”––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 14 January 2025; c. 92, Q200.]

Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Primary Headteachers Association gave another good example, telling us:

“I had to step in as an interim headteacher in Ipswich just prior to covid. I did not have an early years lead… There was someone who was not a qualified teacher, but who had been running an outstanding nursery… I took her on, and although she was not qualified, she was really excellent. I was able to do that because it was an academy school, and it was not an issue. In a maintained school, there is a specific need for a qualified teacher to teach in early years, so I would not have been able to take her on.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 83, Q174.]

Likewise, when I asked Julie McCulloch from the Association of School and College Leaders whether it was better to have a non-QTS teacher than no teacher, she noted that

“sometimes that is the case, particularly when we are looking at vocational subjects at the top end of secondary school and into colleges.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 22, Q44.]

When the Secretary of State was asked about this on “The News Agents” last night, she made exactly the same point. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment for the Bill says that

“some schools may struggle to find the teachers that they need”

as a result of the measure. It adds:

“From September 2026, we estimate this could affect around 700-1,250 potential entrants to the teaching profession per annum…This represents around 1-2% of all entrants to the teaching workforce in…2022.”

The only phrase I take issue with in that is “to the teaching profession”, because it is not the teaching profession as a whole but state schools that those potentially brilliant teachers will be locked out of. Private schools will not have the same burden put on them.

In attempting to construct an argument for that restriction, the impact assessment also says:

“Evidence suggests that being taught by a high-quality teacher can add almost half a GCSE grade per subject to a given pupil’s results”.

Obviously, we all know that high-quality teachers are key in education, but amazingly, the Department for Education does not go on to produce a single shred of evidence—it does not even attempt to give a tiny particle of evidence—that teachers without QTS are of low quality. When Ministers have been pressed on that, they do not demur; a policy is being adopted without any evidence at all.

There is also no estimate of what impact the creation of a new barrier to entry might have, particularly in the sorts of subject area that non-QTS teachers are employed in, which are often those that are more difficult to recruit for. Even the Government sort of acknowledge that the measure is not needed, as we find out by reading a footnote at the bottom of page 24 of the impact assessment, which was published halfway through the Bill Committee process. It is like “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy”; the plans are available if we go to a locked toilet in an abandoned room on the bottom floor of a building that is open twice a year. The footnote reveals that:

“Unqualified teachers will not require QTS to work in further education, 14–19 and 16-19 academies, university technical colleges, studio schools and non-maintained school early years settings.”

My first question to the Minister is, if it is so desperately important to ban non-QTS teachers from our schools that we have to make primary legislation to do it, why are all those other types of school not included? How many non-QTS teachers are in those settings and will therefore be exempt?

Last month, data came out showing that the Government had recruited only 62% of their target number of students into initial teacher training for secondary schools, with particularly dramatic shortfalls in subjects such as physics, where only 30% of the target number had been recruited, business studies, design and technology, music, computing and chemistry. The National Education Union rightly talks about a

“global teacher recruitment and retention crisis”.

Most school systems across the world are battling to recruit teachers; if anyone googles “teacher shortage Ireland” or “teacher shortage Australia”—or “teacher shortage” pretty much anywhere—they will see what I mean.

Between 2011 and 2022, the last Government added 29,454 extra teachers to schools in England and grew the total school workforce by 96,555, or 11%. yet we still have a shortage of teachers in key subjects. About 3% of teachers are non-QTS, so this might seem like an odd time to make things harder for schools to recruit good teachers, especially in the specialist subjects where they tend to be used. To that end, our amendments seek to at least limit those counterproductive new restrictions, which have received a wide variety of criticisms from the sector. Amendment 73 proposes in a five-year grace period, because not requiring QTS can get teachers through the door into state education.

What message does the Government measure send to people who are mid-career, who might want to become teachers and give back but who cannot actually afford to do a PGCE or an apprenticeship? The Government’s plan will grandfather non-QTS teachers, but if they move school, they will have to get QTS. Amendment 74 would allow mobility and fix that. Amendment 75 would retain the freedom at least for shortage subjects; amendment 94, in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham, also looks at that issue. Amendment 76 would allow academies to maintain discretion about whether to employ teachers without QTS if they are subject matter experts and have received training from the academy in question.

The bottom line is: where is the evidence—any evidence—that this is a problem in our education system, never mind one of the most important problems that we need to make primary legislation to resolve? Where is the evidence that DFE Ministers know better who to employ than school leaders themselves? They have not produced a single shred of evidence in the impact assessment.

I am afraid that this measure is another example of Ministers believing that they know best, but it will make recruitment challenges harder, create a barrier to entry into state schools, and prevent some great sports people, IT people and other people who want to give back from doing so. The unions may want this—they have for years—but it remains a mistake.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The hon. Member has twice referred to professional sportspeople, and the quote he read out at the beginning of his speech mentioned their contributing “alongside” teachers. Does he acknowledge that there is no prohibition on professional sportspeople or other experienced, inspiring professionals contributing alongside teachers? The issue is when they do so without that input. I kindly invite the hon. Member to correct that point.

[Neil O'Brien]

The hon. Lady has completely missed the point. This clause means that academy schools will no longer be able to employ people without QTS to do exactly the kind of inspiring things that Sir Martyn, at the start of our first evidence session, said he had used them so brilliantly to do.

[Catherine Atkinson]

The quote was “alongside” teachers. Having people there alongside teachers is not prohibited. I am sure that the Minister will clarify that matter if I am mistaken.

[Neil O'Brien]

To be clear, it will be illegal to employ them if they do not have QTS. People can turn up, but they cannot be employed. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is deliberately trying to muddy the water, or whether she has just missed the point. I notice that the Minister has not chosen to intervene. To be clear, the clause will stop Sir Martyn and people like him doing exactly what he said he had found it useful to do: employing non-QTS teachers, alongside teachers, to come and give back to their community.

During the course of my remarks, nobody has offered me a single shred of evidence that non-QTS teachers are bad teachers, are somehow a big problem in our schools, or are one of the top problems that we need to address. The clause will make things harder for schools, and it will mean that fewer pupils get a good lesson. Our amendments aim to stop this piece of vandalism, which is something that the unions wanted, that Ministers have given them, and that will be bad for our schools and our children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Darren Paffey]

What I agree is, that if someone is not performing up to scratch, the response should not be to remove the qualification for everyone else, but to deal with that individual teacher and drive up standards within the school. That is once again, completely common sense.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that we train our teachers for a reason? Would he agree that parents expect their children to be taught by qualified teachers for a reason? Would he agree that some of the dismissive attitudes that we have heard from Opposition Members are insulting to the professionalism of our qualified teachers?

[Darren Paffey]

I fully agree that it is deeply concerning that qualified teacher status is so unimportant to them. However, it is unsurprising that the profession is in the state it is and feeling utterly undervalued after the last 14 years. I simply do not understand why qualified teacher status in all schools is such a low priority for some.

The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston mentioned that is the prerogative of good headteachers to have that freedom. Would he therefore logically suggest that it is the freedom of every hospital director to decide whether someone is suitably qualified to carry out surgery, or would they ask for an independent agreed common framework of training and qualification for surgeons? I suspect, and hope, it would be that. The response, as I have said, to the recruitment and the shortage issue is not to lower our ambitions.

I think back to the evidence session in which we heard from Sir Martyn Oliver—His Majesty’s chief inspector at Ofsted—who actually said that appointing a non-qualified teacher to role was a “deficit decision”. Those were his words, not mine. He said that it would not be his first choice, no matter how well it worked, and that non-QTS staff should supplement fully qualified staff, not replace them. I ask the Opposition to reflect on that.

This proportionate, reassuring measure is restoring common sense. It is once again restoring the value of teaching as a profession, alongside the other measures that have been taken on teacher pay, teacher prestige and investment in schools, although those were certainly not taken in recent years.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine McKinnell]

Amendment 80 would retain the existing duty to issue an academy order where a school is judged to be in a category of concern by Ofsted. However, it provides an exemption to the duty in cases where the Secretary of State is unable to identify a suitable sponsor trust for the school.

Amendment 81 would not alter the repeal of the existing duty to issue academy orders to schools in a statutory category of concern; it would replace it with a duty to issue an academy order to schools assessed as requiring significant improvement or assessed by a RISE team to be significantly underperforming in comparison with their peers. Where a school is judged as requiring special measures, the Secretary of State would have a choice as to whether to issue an academy order, to deploy a RISE team or to use another intervention measure.

The amendments acknowledge the spirit of our proposal, which is to repeal the duty to issue academy orders and so to provide more flexibility to take the best course of action for each school. We recognise that in some cases the existing leadership of a failing school is strong and, with the right support, has the capacity to improve the school. Repealing the duty to issue an academy order means that in such cases we will have the flexibility to provide targeted support to schools, for example through RISE teams, to drive school improvement without the need to change the school’s leadership. I acknowledge the spirit of amendments 80 and 81 and the support for greater flexibility, but they would undermine the objective of enabling greater flexibility when intervening in failing schools. I therefore ask the hon. Members not to press them.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

As set out by the Secretary of State yesterday, is it not the case that RISE teams will make the faster, earlier interventions to help schools improve before the situation gets so bad that these orders are given? Is that not exactly the point we are trying to get to?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Absolutely. The hon. Lady has put it very well. I was going to come to the detail of how the RISE teams will work, as I appreciate some questions have been raised. Fundamentally it needs to be understood that RISE will be a very different service from previous education improvement services that have been referenced. There will be more days, more money and better quality, because RISE will draw on the very best available school improvement capacity within the region, much of which lies within our academy trust leaders themselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

I too absolutely welcome this new duty to co-operate. It is really important in the context of the problems that competition over people’s heads has led to. I am, however, like others, a bit concerned about the vagueness of the way that it is specified in the legislation. I feel that it does not make it clear enough what the duty to co-operate actually means. Would the Minister consider making it more clear, such as specifying that the local authority becomes the admissions authority for all schools in the area? Would the Government also consider reforming the legacy of partial selection that is still there for some schools? Arguably, we should reform aptitude-based tests and other admissions tests, which evidence shows have led to inequalities in admissions.

[Catherine Atkinson]

The Bill represents a really important opportunity to strengthen the partnership working between schools and local authorities. As well as visiting schools across my constituency of Derby North, I visited Derby College and our university technical college—UTC. In looking at the opportunities and benefits that can be brought by better co-operation, would the Minister consider encouraging local authorities to assess fully 14 to 16 provision across all providers, to ensure that any gaps or barriers to accessing all those opportunities are considered? Could there also be potential consideration of offering opportunities for young people to study and train for part of the week in college settings? There is a real opportunity for our young people when we have better collaboration and co-operation on admissions.

[Catherine McKinnell]

In response to both Opposition Front-Bench spokespersons, we have deliberately not attempted to set out precisely what co-operation means, because it will depend on unique local context and issues. We expect, however, co-operation to include local authorities engaging collaboratively and constructively with schools, and academy trusts producing proposals for ensuring sufficient school places and how to reduce and repurpose spare capacity, which the hon. Member for Twickenham rightly identified as a challenge. We also expect local authorities to share their place-planning strategy with academy trusts and other local partners, and be transparent about underpinning capacity and forecast data, as well as the rationale for targeting schools for expansion or contraction.

We expect schools and trusts to work collaboratively and constructively with local authorities, other academy trusts and the Department, on place-planning matters; act reasonably when considering or responding to requests to raise or lower published admission numbers; expand or contract where necessary; and be transparent with local authorities and the regions group about issues affecting their ability to deliver places and about any significant changes that they are planning. I hope that addresses the concerns.

My hon. Friend the Member for Derby North asked a question about 14 to 16 provision. Where that is in an academy trust within a local authority area, the same co-operation duties apply. She is absolutely right that moments of transition are another key factor, and they have been regularly identified as a challenge for young people. They can be a real opportunity for young people but can also be challenging. We must create seamless transitions for young people. I will take away the consideration that the duty could form part of the solution to ensuring smooth transitions, particularly by ensuring that we have the provision for the age cohort she referred to. I trust that I have answered the questions raised.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Seventh sitting)

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his time as a school governor. Governors across the country do such important work holding headteachers to account and supporting them in the difficult challenges that they face. He made an important point about punctuality. We know, of course, that if a child is accessing a breakfast club, it hopefully gets them to school on time. I know that he has been a real champion of those issues in his constituency.

We have just heard how passionate Labour Members are about the difference that breakfast clubs will make, and that is why we are so excited to roll them out through this legislation. We will learn from the early-adopter scheme, which will inform the monitoring and evaluation plan for the national roll-out. For that roll-out, we will ensure that there are appropriate arrangements for the collection of breakfast club data from schools and for the evaluation of the programme.

The hon. Member for Twickenham made a number of helpful points on the practicalities of funding our ambitions for children and young people. The new breakfast clubs and the benefits that they will bring to children and families up and down the country are a top priority for this Government. We will therefore, of course, provide funding to cover the new duty, including for the costs of nutritious food and staffing. Moreover, informed by our early-adopter scheme, we will support schools who face delivery challenges to find the right approach for their school, pupils and parents. Schools will absolutely not be left to do this alone. As I mentioned, from April this year, before this duty comes into force, we will work with up to 750 new breakfast clubs in schools across the country.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire mentioned that many schools already have breakfast clubs. I regularly visit schools in Derby North and recently visited Cavendish Close junior academy, which already provides a breakfast club. Staff there were confident in their ability to scale up; in fact, they are excited to do so and welcome the opportunity. Does the Minister agree that this clause will open up the benefits of breakfast clubs to all our children in primary schools and that that represents a massive step forward?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. She speaks very eloquently about the benefits this will bring to parents. Those benefits will include not only £450 back into the parent’s pocket but more childcare choices. I know that she is excited about this programme being rolled out in her constituency. To summarise the points on funding, we are keen to learn from the early adopters and feed that into our ongoing support programme for schools.

A number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, raised points about the impact on attendance. Breakfast clubs have been proven to ensure that every child starts the day ready to learn by improving attendance, behaviour and attainment. The Magic Breakfast evaluation reported that the improved attendance of children at schools with breakfast clubs was equivalent to 26 fewer half-days of absence per year for a class of 30, and research by the Education Endowment Foundation showed that there was up to two months of additional progress from key stage 1 to key stage 2. Schools that have offered free universal breakfast clubs have told us that they make a huge difference. For example, Burton Green primary school in York reported significant improvements in punctuality, children more settled for lessons and improved behaviour, especially for pupils with SEND.

I assure hon. Members that I understand that absence is a key barrier to learning. For children to achieve and thrive, they need to be in school. We are doing lots to support that, including making attendance guidance statutory last summer, requiring schools to return data through our attendance data tool, and working with our attendance ambassador, Rob Tarn, to develop an attendance toolkit. We have also expanded the attendance monitoring programme to reach 1,000 more children, and have invested £15 million to expand that programme, which provides targeted one-to-one support for students who are persistently absent. I commend the clause to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

Press release—there we go! This is a rare benefit of Brexit: we have the freedom to apply a zero rate of VAT on school uniform up to the age of 16. It is a basic issue of fairness. If the Government want to drive down the cost of uniform, this is a simple thing for them to address.

[Catherine Atkinson]

There is a uniform shop, Uniform Direct, in my constituency in Derby, which was opened by Harvinder Shanan. Like me, she is a mum of three. She is determined to drive down the costs of school uniform and understands the financial pressures that local families face, particularly with the cost of living crisis that the last Government left us in. Her small business has been able to reduce the cost of items. She told me about how in one instance, when she began to supply a school, she was able to bring the cost of their blazers down from £75 to £25.

I note that the majority of the schools that Harvinder Shanan supplies are already compliant with the limitations on the number of branded items that the Bill imposes. If many can reduce, or have already reduced, the number of branded items, I am concerned that amendments seeking exceptions would fundamentally undermine the purpose of the clause, which is to bring down the costs of school uniform that families have to bear. Some providers might seek to increase the costs of branded items. Consideration of a cost cap was asked for, to limit the amount of money that could be charged. I invite the Minister to keep the clause under review and to keep all options open, should the cost of branded uniform items rise.

Turning to new clause 56, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston indicated a shared concern about prescription for schools, which seems somewhat at odds with the prescription sought through the new clause, which would prescribe details of how second-hand items might be made available down to what is on school websites. My concern is that the detail of that provision would impose so much prescription that when there are new items of uniform, second-hand items simply would not be available.

In total, the clause represents a huge saving for families in Derby North and across the country. I greatly welcome the provision.

[Neil O'Brien]

I find myself in great agreement with much of what the hon. Member for Twickenham said about the danger that this provision will turn into a piece of backfiring micromanagement. The Opposition have made that point and, indeed, we have heard Labour Members make the same point. We are not in a position to make a fiscal commitment today, but I thought that that the hon. Lady made a good point about VAT. I found myself agreeing with more and more of what she was saying and then, towards the end, when she started talking about potential Brexit benefits, I realised we were really through the looking glass. Remarkable moments here today—incredible scenes.

To describe our amendments in brief, amendments 29 and 30 say that schools can have items that parents do not have to pay for, and amendment 31 clarifies that it is three at any given time. Schools can require replacement of lost items; amendment 32 exempts PE kit, and amendment 91 exempts school sports team kit. New clause 56 is a positive suggestion to make schools offer old uniform to parents. As the hon. Member for Twickenham said, we do not particularly want to be prescriptive, but if we are going to be, we might as well do it in sensible ways. That builds on the previous guidance.

When I was a school governor, which was mainly under the previous Labour Government, I was struck by the flood of paper that came forth every week from “DFE Towers”, the Sanctuary Buildings. That flood abated a little after 2010, although probably never enough. Sometimes, I wondered whether we had more ring binders with policies in than we had children; but that might soon seem like a golden age, because under new Ministers, the urge to micromanage seems to be going into overdrive.

Our guidance, introduced in 2021, encouraged schools to have multiple suppliers, and it was focused on generally holding down costs, as the hon. Member for Twickenham pointed out. Parents are in fact spending less in real terms on school uniforms overall than they were a decade ago, according to the DFE’s own survey. The DFE found that average total expenditure on school uniform overall was down 10% in real terms, compared with 2014.

--- Later in debate ---

We are about to make that the law of the land. This is micromanagement on steroids. The age of school freedom is clearly over and the age of ministerial micromanagement is back, back, back, as we will see in future clauses.

[Catherine Atkinson]

The shadow Minister’s new clause 56 sets out specific things in great detail. It seems really odd that he has a concern about micromanagement in light of the provisions he has tabled.

[Neil O'Brien]

The hon. Lady is quite right to point out the tension between wanting to avoid micromanagement and saying that if we are in the business of prescription, we might do some sensible things. I wanted to offer a positive suggestion rather than simply critique what the Government are doing, which is why that is there. Indeed, a lot of schools are already doing it. I understand the hon. Lady’s point, but one reason why Whitehall micromanagement is a bad idea is that rules dreamed up by civil service mandarins in London often go wrong when they make contact with the real world. That is exactly what has happened here.

I have no doubt that Ministers’ intentions for clause 23 are good, but it will have the opposite effect to the one they intend. It may well make things more expensive for parents—not less. That will hit many schools. Ministers said, in answer to a written question, that

“based on the Department’s 2023 cost of school uniforms survey of parents, we estimate that one third of primary schools and seven in ten secondary schools will have to remove compulsory branded items from their uniforms to comply”.

Instead of measures the Government could have brought forward in the Bill—things that the polls show are teacher priorities such as discipline, as Teacher Tapp shows—we will have at least 8,000 schools spending their time reviewing their uniform policy.

Worst of all, this may well end up increasing costs for parents overall. Many secondary schools will respond to this new primary legislation by stopping having uniform PE kit, at which point, highly brand-aware kids will push parents to have stuff from Adidas or Nike or whatever instead, which will be more expensive. What do we think that school leaders will get rid of in response to the new rules? We know that according to the Government, lots of them will have to change their uniforms in response to this.

In a poll of school leaders last year, more than half said that the first things they would remove in the event of such restrictions would be PE kit, but uniform PE kit is cheaper than sportswear brands; it is nearly half the price for secondary school kids. I worry that the Government have a sort of tunnel vision here. They want to cut the cost of uniform, but we really want to cut the cost of clothing children overall. The problem is that when we get rid of uniform, particularly PE kit, what will fill the space is often more expensive and worse.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

While I have the utmost respect for the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, I want to draw his attention to the real world of parents, the cost of uniforms, the impact of negativity on pupils. As a former teacher and a parent of three lads who did not all go to the same school, so could not always have their clothes passed down, I am really pleased to see clause 23. We have heard from the Children’s Commissioner that this is an issue for so many children, through her big ambition conversation on behalf of children. We also see a BBC survey that notes how senior teachers, and I have been one of these, have helped parents buy uniform and have provided school uniform. That is done by so many staff in our schools across the country and it also shows the cost of the hardship that parents and families are under.

The Children’s Society also note in their support that this is “practical and effective”. They do not see it as red tape, as lines being drawn, or as schools being held to account. They actually see it as a real, practical and effective way to help children and to help parents afford uniform. It does not stop schools stipulating a school colour or a standard of uniform, relating to their own uniform policy. It stops uniforms costing the earth. Many parents have emailed me, and one parent said that they stagger the cost of uniform across the year—buying one now and getting another next time, when they get paid. That leaves children—I am guilty of it myself— wearing uniforms that are too big, and that they never grow into. Or worse still, if the uniform is passed down, it might be worn out because siblings have worn it, or a cousin has worn it, or a neighbour has worn it before donating it to the kids. The clause stops children feeling self-conscious and really uncomfortable in school. It gives them a sense of dignity while they are in their school place and—we all know— if they feel pride in who they are and feel confident, it helps with learning and with being able to take part fully in education.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Does my hon. Friend agree that what has been presented suggests that families must choose between branded uniform and fashion brands? Does this clause open up options for parents so that they can have more affordable uniform for their children and save the family money?

[Amanda Martin]

Absolutely, and it does not stop schools also having their own recycling for uniform, which many, many do. I will give a mention to the fabulous Penelope Ann, the only family owned uniform shop we have in Portsmouth, which works with schools to offer the best cost price they can on blazers and other uniform pieces to everyone across the city, allowing parents to top up, whether they want to buy trousers in that shop, or a supermarket, or go to another place to buy the extra uniform. In reality, three pieces of uniform could be a PE T-shirt, a book bag, and a school jumper. Those are three things that it could be, and that every child would be able to have. If they are in secondary school, it could be a blazer. It is on us to make sure. We have to check that schools are working with this. For example, Penelope Ann could offer schools a mark-up price on that blazer. It may well be that one school says, “No, thank you,” but that other schools do mark it up. It is for us to check and make sure that the reality is that every single child can wear a piece of uniform and feel part of their school.

In short, it is common sense. It makes uniforms affordable for all kids and it is what parents and children have been asking for.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

Thank you, Sir Christopher. I will include it here—I just wanted to double-check.

Although I have asked lots of questions about it, we totally agree with the spirit of the clause. In fact, in February 2023, the last Conservative Government published a strategy and consultation on reforming children’s social care called “Stable Homes, Built on Love”. That was partly a response to reports published in 2022, including the final report of the independent review of children’s social care, which was very ably put together by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister). The 2023 strategy said that, over the following two years, the Government would invest £200 million,

“laying the foundations for whole system reform and setting national direction for change.”

After two years, the Government would refresh the strategy, scale up the approaches and bring forward new legislation, and in a sense that is what is happening now. This Government are doing some of the things that we had hoped to do when we were in government.

We are obviously not against new legislation; in fact, as part of the strategy, we provided £45 million to launch the Families First for Children pathfinder in 12 local areas for the following two years. That was going to test some of the measures in the Bill, such as more multi-agency working and early, non-stigmatising help and group decision making. We set up those pilots partly because of one of the measures in clause 1.

Those pilots started in July 2023 and, frustratingly, the results are supposed to be out in the next couple of months. Because of the way that things happen in this place, we are in the slightly frustrating position of having done a proper experiment—we have tested the concepts in clause 1 in the pilot—as we always say we want to do as politicians, but we do not get to hear the results, which are potentially just weeks away.

Have Ministers had sight of early findings from those pilots? Would they be prepared to make them available to Members of this House and of the other place, either in written form or via access to those who have been doing the work of pulling the findings together? It is very frustrating: there is a good piece of evidence, on which a lot of time and money has been spent, and yet, at the point at which we are legislating, we do not quite have access to it. It is weeks away. I hope that Ministers will find a way to share the findings with Members of both Houses.

As I alluded to, I read the Foundations report. Based on a randomised controlled trial, it states:

“We estimate that if family group conferences were to be rolled out across England, 2,293 fewer children would go into care in a 12-month period”.

That would be about a 7% drop, so that is a very large effect. If the RCT is right and it is not just a pilot effect, the effect would be big. We have that estimate from an external group, but I would like to know what the Government think the clause will do to the number of people in care.

On the one hand, that is very encouraging. Having 7% fewer children safely flowing into care every year would be a glorious and fantastic outcome, which is why both sides are interested in the model. On the other hand, such a big change would bring with it some downsides and risks, as is inevitable when we are talking about so many children. The Foundations report concludes that

“There is a need to undertake further research”.

I therefore have another question for the Minister: what gold standard randomised controlled trial work have the Government planned to understand the impacts of the change if it is rolled out as we expect?

I am speaking specifically of the potential negative impacts, which will be smaller in number and hard to look at. We might think, “Wonderful, we have 7% fewer children flowing into care every year. That is great,” but what happens to the children who do not end up in care but have a bad experience in another way? We all hope that will be a much smaller number, but when there is a big upside, there will probably be downsides as well. It is important to have a piece of research in train to try to measure those downsides and check whether the good consequences that we hope for also come with negative consequences. Unless we have the research that Foundations has called for, we will not find that out.

We do not disagree on the attractiveness of family group decision making in principle, but we need to make it work and to minimise the risks. Our amendment is one way to do part of that. We need to make sure that we are seizing all the opportunities of this legislative moment; they do not come around too often, as the Minister pointed out the other day. As the Bill goes through, we need to get a lot more information about that consequential reform. That will come partly from the Government’s impact assessment, when it is published, and partly from the Government providing the answers to some of our questions.

I have given lots of examples, and I hope that Ministers will think very carefully about some of the suggestions that we are getting from the serious experts who have been doing this for a long time. They are totally independent—they just want the right thing for kids and to ensure that we get the upsides of this change, which we all support in principle, while minimising the downsides.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to amendments 36, 37 and 18. It has been a number of years since I was regularly involved in care proceedings as a barrister, but I did so for the best part of a decade. I and a number of my former colleagues hugely welcome this requirement for family group decision making to ensure that it can consistently take place and that all kinship options are considered before there is an application to remove a child from their family and place them in care. I anticipate that the clause will mean fewer cases where lawyers have to get involved and where families are subject to care proceedings.

I am concerned about amendments 36 and 37, however, which would make the Bill more directive about children being present at family group decision making. The wishes and feelings of the child need, of course, to be considered at that meeting and the voice of the child should, of course, always be heard, but that is different from them being present at the meeting. It is really important that the discussion at that meeting is frank and meaningful—often, in that meeting, family members will be finding out, and coming to understand, the risks posed to a child. The appropriate way for a child to be told about their safety or an issue that parents need to tackle is likely to be very different, and more tailored, from what is appropriate for the adults in the room.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that amendment 37 proposes a presumption of inclusion but, where

“the local authority deems it inappropriate”—

for example, if the child is too young or because of the nature of the proceedings—the child would not be included? The problem with the Bill as it is drafted is that some local authorities, who do not necessarily respect the voice of the child or ensure that the child is involved, may routinely leave the child out of the discussion, even with teenagers who could be helpfully involved.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Giving that discretion is really important, but by saying “should”, amendment 37 would give a directive to the local authority to first look at including the child, and only reject that in circumstances where it can be demonstrated that including them would be harmful and inappropriate. In my view, that fetters the discretion and pushes things into a potentially harmful situation, especially given the number of children that we are talking about—not younger children, but definitely those at the upper end. In my view, we should not fetter the discretion. I do not think that that kind of directive is helpful in those circumstances.

On amendment 18, I do not need to be told how important it is that childcare proceedings are conducted quickly and without delay. At the moment, the 26-week time limit set out in the Children and Families Act 2014 is not met in over two thirds of cases. I think we are averaging 41 weeks—which is better than last year, when it was nearly 45 weeks—and that includes cases where everything is agreed and not contested.

My former colleagues are regularly involved in cases lasting over a year and some lasting over two years. I do not think that, in the 10 years since the 26-week limit was enacted, the majority of cases have ever been completed within six months. The amendment is therefore somewhat incongruous given what we have seen over the last 10 years—I think that a number of my former colleagues would consider it brass neck.

The amendment does not do anything to ensure that we deal with cases rapidly, because the 26 weeks starts when an application is made, but the whole point of the clause is that family group decision making needs to take place before an application is made. In my view, the amendment does nothing to restrict the time to 26 weeks, because clause 1 does not have an impact on that timescale at all, and it certainly does not prevent local authorities from holding family group decision making earlier.

I am somewhat provoked to note that it was the coalition Government’s Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 that cut all legal aid for private family law cases unless there are allegations of abuse. Out-of-court or pre-proceeding discussions and settlements, and the involvement of professionals, have therefore become far harder since 2012.

[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.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Catherine Atkinson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

Q Clause 8 specifies that local authorities need to set out a local offer. You have talked about the need to avoid fragmentation, and about corporate responsibility across the country and across Departments. Would you like to see the Bill amended to require a national offer of support to care leavers, and what do you think should be in it?

Ruth Stanier: We certainly would want to see corporate parenting duties extended at a national level to Government Departments and relevant public sector bodies. We think that is incredibly important. Otherwise, we are very much supportive of the measures in the Bill in respect of the kinship offer, though we think it is important that there is a clear threshold for that support so that it is realistic and affordable and can be implemented.

Andy Smith: I would support that. A national offer for care leavers is an interesting concept. There should be some absolute minimum requirements we expect in an offer, and I think you would broadly see that in many councils in what is provided for children in care and for care leavers. It is usually co-produced with representatives who were care leavers, and with councils and so on. I think that would be an important reflection within the context of a much broader understanding of corporate parenting.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

Q We heard in earlier evidence that spending on early intervention has reduced while crisis costs have significantly increased. What do you think will be the impact of early intervention, including family group decision making, primarily on outcomes but also, in the longer term, on costs?

Ruth Stanier: We very much think that the measures in the Bill will help to pull funding to the left, further upstream into prevention. We warmly welcome the Government’s recent investment in the children’s prevention grant. We think that the measures should help to improve outcomes and reduce costs over the longer term.

Andy Smith: It is absolutely a false economy not to invest in early help and early intervention. We know that the evidence base is so strong on children escalating into higher-cost services. My authority has invested in early help services, and we have an edge of care team that targets children on the edge of the care system. When we are able to prevent them from going into care, we track the cost avoidance, looking at what a typical placement might have cost. We have saved in excess of £5 million over the last three years in cost avoidance.

The case is well argued. The challenge is that councils are at different starting points because of the way in which funding has been eroded over the last 10 years and the fact that many councils have to prioritise the higher-cost services, which often take away from early intervention. It is a false economy. If we can get the funding right, the Bill offers us an opportunity to invest in family help and early help services and start to see impacts much more consistently. We are beginning to see some of that from the 12 Families First pilots that are taking place.

[Patrick Spencer]

Q I completely agree on the need for stable safeguarding teams, and they are in the better interests of children, but can you completely rule out any risk that a statutory cap on the use of agency workers will lead to people leaving the profession?

Andy Smith: I cannot absolutely rule that out. We have significant churn in social work, and that is part of the challenge—that we are struggling, as a system, to recruit and retain social workers. We have lots of routes into social work, and we are doing lots to promote the role. I am a social worker. I love it, and it is brilliant, even though I have not practised for a number of years now. The measures in the Bill will go some way in setting some rules around how and when social workers can move into agency social work, but I cannot guarantee that it will stop or prevent the churn in the system. The Bill outlines one tool that will help with the stability that we need in the workforce, and that ultimately leads to better outcomes for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

Q Or even beyond 21.

Jacky Tiotto: Well, yes.

[Catherine Atkinson]

Q We have seen the number of children in care rising really significantly. Looking at the child protection measures, the kinship clauses and the family group conferencing, what do you feel the overall impact of Bill will be on the numbers of children in care?

Jacky Tiotto: It is difficult. We have primary legislation in the Children Act 1989 that says that, in this country, we think the best place for children is growing up in their family or with relatives. When the 30-year review of the Children Act happened, people still signed up to that; this Bill definitely reminds us and provokes that intention again.

The difficulty is that the formality around protecting children is burdensome, rightly so. So in my view some of the construction of this has to be a bit more thoughtful about the children who are going to do well in their families and the children who are not going to stand a chance and need, quickly, to move to permanence and to other places.

Residential care is not doing particularly well for children with very special needs. We struggle to recruit foster carers because the resources around them are not there. It is the shape of what is around those other places, not residential care, that needs to be elevated, in order to reduce the number of children coming into care. Just having family group decision-making conferences or kinship alone is not enough; I do not know anyone saying it is.

I do not know how many of you are familiar with the chief social worker paper from a few years ago called “Care proceedings in England: the case for clear blue water”. A very good, strong case was made for, “Don’t come into court with children where it is going to end up either with them back at home or with a supervision order that gives no statutory power to the local authority. Come into court for the kids that really need a care order and protection and to go somewhere.” We could revisit the extent to which that is an effective situation.

A third of children who come into family proceedings now either remain at home or go back home. I make no judgment about that, but a third of children going through family proceedings is expensive. We need to think about what the point at issue was and what was needed at the time. Will the serving of that order deal with the problem at the time? Often, what has gone wrong in child protection will not be solved by just making a court order, particularly a supervision order. I could be here for a long time on that, but that is another Bill, probably another day.

[Darren Paffey]

Q The Bill proposes a number of measures on illegal children’s homes and a topic you have already mentioned a couple of times—deprivation of liberty, when that does not necessarily need to be in a secure children’s home. What are your reflections on how effective that is going to be in terms of protecting vulnerable children? Do you foresee in particular any impact on family court proceedings if there is now a different outcome in terms of what judges can decide?

Jacky Tiotto: I do not think so, in terms of the strengthening of section 25 of the 1989 Act so that other accommodation can be used that is not a secure children’s home, but I think there is a gross underestimation of how intensive it is to look after those children. That is not just a today thing—it has been coming for 20 years, when we stopped running children’s homes in local authorities, really. The provision of the accommodation in the way that the Bill sets out is good but, as I said before, the issue is about who runs it and how much the staffing costs are for running very specialist provision—