Supported Internship Provision

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 19th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Turner. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) on securing this debate on an incredibly important topic. It is clear from her speech and the work she does that she has a keen interest in supporting children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, and supported internships in particular, and it is clear from the other contributions that her passions are very much shared.

Supported internships are excellent study programmes that provide 16 to 24-year-olds with EHCPs with the skills they need to transition to paid employment. Over the last couple of months, events have been held in each region to celebrate the progress made on supported internships in local communities, after three years of Government investment. A few weeks ago I had the pleasure of speaking to interns, parents and carers when I attended an event celebrating success in London. At that event I met Rayhan, who had a work placement with Transport for London, and whose confidence had grown hugely thanks to the supported internship programme. I met and spoke to many of the young people at that powerful event; they were very proud, but the parents who were with them were even prouder. It was wonderful to see good practice being shared around the country.

Looking ahead to one week tomorrow, the third National Supported Internship Day will take place on 27 March, with more events scheduled throughout the country, including a youth parliament and webinars to raise awareness of supported internships among young people, their families and employers. Many interns, education providers and employers will also be planning local events to show the incredible achievements and capabilities of young people on the programmes.

To shine a light—literally—even further, Harry Georgiou, who works at DFN Project SEARCH and is CEO of the charity 6 Percent & Rising, has led the drive to have national monuments such as the University of Derby and the Northern Spire bridge, which is not far from my constituency, lit up in orange to celebrate supported internships on National Supported Internships Day. What a fantastic way to mark the day!

I know how important it is to ensure that young people with special educational needs and disabilities are prepared for adulthood and employment. In my own city, Newcastle City Learning has a partnership with Northumbria University and Sodexo, whereby young people complete work placements in various roles, including in ground maintenance and sports centres. There are also placements in hospitals in Newcastle, run by Project Choice; my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton mentioned that there are in her area too. These opportunities provide young people with practical experience and valuable skills that help them to secure paid employment. It is so good to witness all the innovative approaches that have been taken, including in my own area, to champion the inclusive practice we need to see everywhere.

Since 2022 the Department for Education has invested up to £18 million to build capacity in supported internships, to support more young people with education, health and care plans to gain the skills to needed transition into employment. The Internships Work consortium—made up of the National Development Team for Inclusion, the British Association for Supported Employment and DFN Project SEARCH, which I mentioned earlier—has been delivering the investment programme. It has worked closely with local authorities to establish SEND employment forums, focused on improving local supported internship provision; rolled out a quality framework and facilitated peer reviews; trained more than 760 job coaches to provide high-quality support to interns while they are on work placements; and recruited almost 800 employer ambassadors, who advocate for establishing supported internships in businesses.

The data from local authorities shows that we are on track to reach our aim of doubling the number of supported internships to 4,500 when the funding ends at the end of this month. That is a great achievement and will provide real employment opportunities for many people. We know that high-quality programmes achieve employment outcomes, because 60% to 70% of their cohorts go on to employment. That is why the investment has also been focused on improving the quality and consistency of the offers across the country.

The indicative data we have from local authorities shows that last year more than 1,500 young people secured paid employment following their internship. The interim report from the evaluation of the programme also shows progress. It shows that the majority of supported internship providers reported offering more supported internships and an improvement in the quality of intern placements with employers. Although it was from quite a small sample, nearly half the interns surveyed had jobs six months after finishing their internship, with three quarters of them working more than 16 hours a week, which is fantastic news for them.

We know that the right preparation and support are essential, and that with that the overwhelming majority of young people with SEND are capable of sustained, paid employment. But not enough people are getting the support they need. To build on the investment, the Department has been running a pilot in 12 local authority areas to test the supported internships model with young people with learning difficulties and disabilities who are furthest from the labour market but do not have education, health and care plans, to see whether that can be an effective way to support them into employment. Indicative data from the Internships Work consortium shows that, across this year and last, about 240 young people have enrolled on non-EHCP pilot programmes, with at least 60 people gaining employment last year. This shows there is demand for this kind of pathway and that it can lead to good outcomes.

I know my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton is keen to know about funding. The funding for Internships Work and the pilot for interns without education, health and care plans is committed up to the end of March 2025. It was designed as a three-year investment to build capacity in the system to deliver more high-quality supported internships throughout the country. We have seen huge progress towards achieving those aims, thanks to the hard work of Internships Work and the commitment we have seen from local authorities, education providers, job coaches, employers and, of course, the interns themselves.

The Department received a settlement for the 2025-26 financial year in the autumn Budget, and we are still working through, with the Secretary of State, how we will allocate the budgets for specific programmes. We hope the process will be completed soon, but unfortunately I do not currently have any further information on budgets for next year. It is fantastic to hear that, despite the financial pressures that many local areas face, some plan to continue their SEND employment forums and value the important work that is taking place on supported interns.

A challenge raised by many stakeholders involved in delivering supported internships is the delays that interns can face when they claim DWP Access to Work funding, which can fund interns’ in-work support needs during their work placements. Demand for Access to Work has been growing, and the personalised nature of the scheme means that it can take longer to identify a customer’s specific needs. Several measures have been put in place, including on streamlining delivery processes and recruiting additional staff, and the DWP has been taking steps to modernise the Access to Work customer journey, with all core parts of the scheme having been fully digital since April 2024.

Access to Work has a dedicated supported internship team in the DWP, which manages all the intern applications. That provides a central point of contact and a direct route for applications. To enable supported interns to have confidence that support will be in place before they start their internship, they can submit Access to Work applications up to six months before they start their work placements.

Despite the DWP having a dedicated team within Access to Work to process supported intern applications, delays are still occurring due to the high demand for Access to Work funding. To make it easier for supported interns to apply, the DWP is working to reduce the administrative burden and paperwork for learning providers. Work is under way to develop a claims process whereby learning providers can claim Access to Work funding for multiple interns using one claim form. The DWP is also working to improve the supported intern application process and the support plan, to reduce the need for additional contacts. My Department is working closely with the DWP on these issues.

Every child and young person, regardless of their individual needs, deserves the opportunity to thrive, succeed and achieve. However, we are aware that there are challenges in the SEND system, and the Government have made a clear commitment to addressing them. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings, as we know that early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating and supports children and young people to achieve their goals while still being alongside their peers. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that that approach is fully planned and delivered in partnership.

We have already begun the work by appointing a strategic adviser on SEND to engage with sector leaders, practitioners, children and families; we have established an expert advisory group on inclusion, to improve the mainstream-education outcomes and experience for children with SEND; and we are setting up a neurodivergence task and finish group to provide a shared understanding of what provision and support in mainstream educational settings should look like for neurodivergent children and young people, within an inclusive system. We recognise that these are complex issues, and we need a considered approach to deliver the change we want to see in a sustainable way that will deliver the outcomes we want for young people.

I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton for bringing this matter forward, and all who have contributed to the debate. I know we all care passionately about ensuring that there are high-quality pathways to employment for young people with special educational needs and disabilities. I have seen at first hand the great work done by employers, local authorities and education providers to break down the barriers for young people with additional needs.

Supported internships are a key part of the Government’s mission to ensure that all young people are supported to achieve the skills they need to be successful in the workplace, regardless of their background. We have made a clear commitment to address the challenges raised today, to support all children and young people to achieve and thrive, and to improve the wider SEND system. I am determined that progress will be made.

I conclude by thanking all those who work in education and employment in the interests of children and young people with SEND throughout the country. I know that they share the desire—and we are determined to work with them—to deliver the very best for all our children and young people, including those with SEND.

Question put and agreed to.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 1—Free school meals: automatic enrolment of eligible children—

“In section 512ZB of the Education Act 1996 (provision of free school lunches and milk), omit subsection (2)(b).”

This new clause would remove the requirement in the Education Act 1996 for eligible children to request free school meals of their local authority.

New clause 6—Establishment of national school food monitoring scheme—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must institute a scheme for monitoring school food standards in England (‘the national school food monitoring scheme’).

(2) The purpose of the national school food monitoring scheme will be to determine whether applicable food standards duties are being met in the provision of all food in schools in England.

(3) The national school food monitoring scheme may from time to time publish reports containing such information as it sees fit relating to school food standards in England.”

This new clause would establish a national school food monitoring scheme, to ensure that the breakfast club provision included within this bill, along with all other school food, follows school food standards.

New clause 7—Registration of children for free school meals—

“After section 512ZA of the Education Act 1996 (power to charge for meals etc.), insert—

“512ZAA Registration of children for free school meals

The Secretary of State must ensure that free school meals are provided to—

(a) all children in England who are eligible to receive free school meals; and

(b) all children whose household income is less than £20,000 per year.””

New clause 9—Duty of school governing bodies regarding mental health provision—

“(1) Subject to subsection (3), the governing body of a maintained or academy school in England has a duty to make arrangements for provision in the school of a dedicated mental health practitioner.

(2) In subsection (1), “education mental health practitioner” means a person with a graduate-level or postgraduate-level qualification of that name earned through a course commissioned by NHS England.

(3) Where a school has 100 or fewer pupils, the duty under subsection (1) may be satisfied through collaborative provision between several schools.

(4) The Secretary of State must provide, or make arrangements for the provision of, appropriate financial and other support to school governing bodies for their purposes of facilitating the fulfilling of the duty in subsection (1).”

New clause 10—Establishment of a National Body for SEND—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, establish a National Body for SEND.

(2) The functions of the National Body for SEND will include, but not be limited to—

(a) national coordination of SEND provision;

(b) supporting the delivery of SEND support for children with very high needs; and

(c) advising on funding needed by local authorities for SEND provision.

(3) Any mechanism used by the National Body for SEND in advising on funding under subsection (2)(c) should be based on current need and may disregard historic spend.”

New clause 11—National Tutoring Guarantee—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, publish a report outlining the steps necessary to introduce a National Tutoring Guarantee.

(2) A “National Tutoring Guarantee” means a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State to ensure access to small group academic tutoring for all disadvantaged children who require academic support.

(3) A report published under this section must include an assessment of how best to deliver targeted academic support from qualified tutors to children—

(a) from low-income backgrounds,

(b) with low prior attainment,

(c) with additional needs, or

(d) who are young carers.

(4) In preparing a report under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) headteachers,

(b) teachers,

(c) school leaders,

(d) parents of children from low-income backgrounds,

(e) children from low-income backgrounds, and

(f) other individuals or organisations as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(5) A report under this section must be laid before Parliament.

(6) Within three months of a report under this section being laid before Parliament, the Secretary of State must take steps to implement the recommendations contained in the report.”

New clause 12—VAT zero-rating for certain items of school uniform—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, make provision for certain items of school uniform to be zero-rated for the purposes of VAT.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “certain items of school uniform” means items of school uniform for pupils up to the age of 16.”

New clause 16—Spiritual, moral, social and cultural education in assemblies—

“(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 70 (requirements relating to collective worship)—

(a) for subsection (1) substitute—

“(1) Subject to section 71, each pupil in attendance at—

(a) a community, foundation or voluntary school in Wales,

(b) a foundation or voluntary school in England which is designated with a religious character, or

(c) an Academy in England which is designated with a religious character,

must on each school day take part in an act of collective worship.”

(b) in subsection (2), for “community, foundation or voluntary school”, substitute “school to which subsection (1) applies”.

(3) After section 70, insert—

“70A Requirements relating to assemblies

(1) This section applies to schools in England that are—

(a) maintained schools without a religious character;

(b) non-maintained special schools;

(c) City Technology Colleges; and

(d) Academies without a religious character.

(2) Each pupil in attendance at a school to which this section applies must, at least once during the school week, take part in an assembly which is principally directed towards furthering the spiritual, moral, social and cultural education of the pupils, regardless of religion or belief.

(3) In relation to any school to which this section applies—

(a) the local authority responsible for education (in the case of maintained schools) and the governing body must exercise their functions with a view to securing, and

(b) the head teacher must secure,

that subsection (2) is complied with.””

This new clause would remove the requirement for daily collective worship in England for maintained schools and academies without a religious character, non-maintained special schools, and city technology colleges, and introduce a requirement for a weekly assembly furthering spiritual, moral, social and cultural education.

New clause 23—Provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE to persons who have not attained the age of 18 at further education providers—

“(1) The Children and Social Work Act 2017 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 34 (Education relating to relationships and sex)—

(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert “and

(c) relationships and sex education to be provided to persons who have not attained the age of eighteen and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England”;

(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;

(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;

(d) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.

(3) In section 35 (Other personal, social, health and economic education)—

(a) at the end of subsection (1)(b) insert “and

(c) to persons who have not attained the age of eighteen and who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England”;

(b) in subsection (2)(a), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;

(c) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”;

(d) in subsection (2)(b), after “schools” insert “and further education providers”.”

This new clause would extend the existing provision of relationships and sex education and PSHE under the Children and Social Work Act 2017 to people under the age of 18 who are receiving education at post-16 education institutions in England.

New clause 24—Cap on new faith schools’ admissions—

“(1) Any school or academy established more than two months after the passing of this Act which—

(a) is of a religious character, and

(b) is selective on the basis of faith,

must adopt admissions criteria which provide that, where the school is oversubscribed, at least 50% of the places available each year are allocated without reference to faith-based criteria.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to an academy established as a result of a maintained school being converted into an academy under section 4 of the Academies Act 2010, except where the converted maintained school was—

(a) of a religious character, and

(b) selective on the basis of faith prior to conversion.”

This new clause would require new schools with faith-based admissions (other than those which were maintained schools that have converted to being academies) to apply a 50% cap on faith-based admissions places when oversubscribed, in line with the cap for new academies and free schools.

New clause 31—Guidance on the admission of summer-born children with EHC plans—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, publish guidance for local authorities and school admissions authorities on the admission of summer-born children with education, health and care plans.

(2) Guidance published under this section must—

(a) detail the factors which must be taken into account when considering a request for a summer born child with an EHC plan to be placed outside of their normal age group;

(b) include a presumption that requests relating to the placement or admission of summer-born children with EHC plans should be considered on no less favourable terms than requests relating to summer-born children without EHC plans; and

(c) outline circumstances when it may, or may not, be appropriate for a child who has been placed outside of their normal age group to be moved to join their normal age group , with a presumption that such a placement should be no less favourable terms than placements relating to summer-born children without EHC plans;

(d) detail how parents may object to the placing of their child with their normal age group, and the process by which such objections will be considered.

(3) In developing guidance under this section, the Secretary of State must consult with—

(a) groups representing the interests of parents;

(b) individuals and organisations with expertise in supporting children with special educational needs and the parents of such children;

(c) other such parties as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.

(4) For the purposes of this section, “summer-born children” means children born between 1 April and 31 August.”

New clause 32—Collection and publication of data relating to summer-born children—

“(1) A local authority must collect and publish data on—

(a) the number and proportion of summer-born children who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group—

(i) with EHC plans, and

(ii) without EHC plans

(b) the number and proportion of summer-born children—

(i) with EHC plans, and

(ii) without EHC plans

who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group and who have been required to join their normal age group;

(c) the number and proportion of summer-born children with EHC plans who started school in the local authority’s area outside of their normal age group and who have been required to join their normal age group in a—

(i) special school;

(ii) mainstream school.

(2) The Secretary of State must annually—

(a) conduct a statistical analysis of, and

(b) publish a report on the data collected by local authorities under subsection (1).”

New clause 34—Provision of free school lunches to all primary school children—

“(1) Section 512ZB of the Education Act 1996 (provision of free school lunches and milk) is amended as follows.

(2) In paragraph (4A)(b), after "year 2," insert "year 3, year 4, year 5, year 6".

(3) In subsection (4C), after “age of 7;" insert—

“Year 3” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 8;

“Year 4” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 9;

“Year 5” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 10;

“Year 6” means a year group in which the majority of children will, in the school year, attain the age of 11;”

This new clause would extend free school lunches to all primary school age children in state funded schools.

New clause 38—Power to prescribe pay and conditions for teachers—

“The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act—

(a) make provision for the power of the governing bodies of maintained schools to set the pay and working conditions of school teachers to be made equivalent with the relevant powers of academies;

(b) provide guidance to all applicable schools that—

(i) pay levels given in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document are to be treated as the minimum pay of relevant teachers;

(ii) teachers may be paid above the pay levels given in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document;

(iii) they must have regard to the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document but may vary from it.”

This new clause would make the pay set out in the School Teachers’ Pay and Conditions Document a floor, and extend freedoms over pay and conditions to local authority maintained schools.

New clause 39—Approved free schools and university training colleges in pre-opening—

“The Secretary of State must make provision for the opening of all free schools and university training colleges whose applications were approved prior to October 2024.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to proceed with the opening of free schools whose opening was paused in October 2024.

New clause 40—Duty for schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police—

“(1) Where an act listed in subsection (2) takes place which involves the use or threat of force against a member of a school’s staff, the school must report the incident to the police.

(2) An act must be reported to the police where—

(a) it is directed towards a member of school staff or their property; and

(b) it takes place—

(i) on school property; or

(ii) because of the victim’s status as a member of a school’s staff.

(3) The provisions of this section do not require or imply a duty on the police to take specific actions in response to such reports.”

This new clause would create a duty for all schools to report acts or threats of violence against their staff to the police. It would not create a requirement for the police to charge the perpetrator.

New clause 41—Right to review school curriculum material—

“Where requested by the parent or carer of a child on the school’s pupil roll, a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum, including those provided by external, third-party, charitable or commercial providers.”

This new clause would ensure that parents can view materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum.

New clause 48—Review of Impact on Home Educators and Reduction of Unnecessary Reporting—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review and report of the impact of clause 26 on home educators in England.

(2) The review must include an assessment of

(a) the administrative and reporting requirements placed on home educators as a result of clause 26;

(b) the administrative and reporting requirements placed on local authorities as a result of clause 26;

(c) the extent to which such requirements are necessary for safeguarding purposes; and

(d) any data or reporting obligations that can be reduced or removed for home educators where they are not essential for safeguarding.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the findings of the review, including—

(a) an analysis of the impact of clause 26 on home educators;

(b) a clear outline of any data or reporting obligations that will no longer be required from home educators; and

(c) a timeline for the removal of unnecessary reporting obligations, which must not exceed 12 months from the publication of the report.

(4) In conducting the review, the Secretary of State must consult with representatives of home educators and relevant stakeholders.

(5) The report must be made publicly available.

(6) The Secretary of State must ensure that any reporting obligations identified as unnecessary under subsection (3)(b) are removed within the timeframe specified in subsection (3)(c).”

New clause 49—Provision of free meals and activities during school holidays—

“(1) A local authority must—

(a) provide; or

(b) coordinate the provision of programmes which provide,

free meals and activities to relevant children during school holidays.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant children” means children in receipt of free school meals.

(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument—

(a) specify minimum standards for meals and activities during school holidays;

(b) specify criteria that organisations involved in the delivery of meals and activities during school holidays must meet.”

This new clause would place a duty on local authorities to provide or coordinate free meals and activities for children eligible for free school meals during school holidays.

New clause 51—Flexibility to take into account local circumstances when following the National Curriculum—

“In section 87 of the Education Act 2002 (establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order), after subsection (1) insert—

“(1A) In any revision to the National Curriculum for England, the Secretary of State must ensure that the National Curriculum shall consist of—

(a) a core framework; and

(b) subjects or areas of learning outside the core framework that allow flexibility for each school to take account of their specific circumstances.””

This new clause would clarify that, when revised, the National Curriculum for England will provide a core framework as well as flexibility for schools to take account of their own specific circumstances.

New clause 52—Parliamentary approval of revisions of the National Curriculum—

“In section 87 of the Education Act 2002 (establishment of the National Curriculum for England by order), after subsection (3) insert—

“(3A) An order made under this section revising the National Curriculum for England shall be subject to the affirmative procedure.””

This new clause would make revisions to the National Curriculum subject to parliamentary approval by the affirmative procedure.

New clause 53—Arrangements for national examinations for children not in school—

“After section 436G of the Education Act 1996, as inserted by section 25 of this Act, insert—

“436GA Arrangements for national examinations for children not in school

Where a child is eligible to be registered by the authority under section 436B, the authority must—

(a) provide for the child to be able to sit any relevant national examination; and

(b) provide financial assistance to enable the child to sit any relevant national examination; where requested by the parent or carer of the child.””

New clause 54—Review of Free School Meal eligibility and Pupil Premium registration—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, conduct a review of—

(a) the number of children in England who are eligible for free school meals but are not claiming them,

(b) the number of children who are eligible for free school meals but are not registered for the purposes of pupil premium funding,

(c) the number of additional children who would be eligible for free school meals if the income thresholds had been uprated in line with inflation since 2018, and

(d) the number of additional children who would be eligible for free school meals if the income thresholds were set at £20,000 per annum after tax.

(2) A review under subsection (1) must include an assessment of—

(a) barriers preventing eligible children from claiming free school meals;

(b) disparities in take-up rates across different regions and demographics; and

(c) the financial and educational impact of under-registration on schools and local authorities.

(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament setting out the findings of the review, including any recommendations for improving registration for and take-up of free school meals and pupil premium funding.

(4) The review and report required under this section must be repeated annually.”

Amendment 219, in clause 22, page 41, line 23, at end insert—

“and for all pupils attending special schools”.

This amendment would require the delivery of school breakfast provision to all pupils in special schools, regardless of their age.

Amendment 2, page 41, line 23, at end insert—

“(1A) The appropriate authority must, in securing breakfast club provision, make provision for the needs of qualifying children listed on the school’s Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Register.”

This amendment would require the providers of breakfast clubs to make particular provision for the needs of children on schools’ Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Registers.

Amendment 220, page 42, line 23, at end insert—

““special schools” has the meaning set out in section 337 of the Education Act 1996.”

This amendment defines special schools and is consequential on amendment 219.

Amendment 214, page 43, line 11, at end insert—

“(2A) Before making an application under subsection (1), the appropriate authority of a relevant school must consider whether the duty might be met by other forms of breakfast provision including—

(a) classroom-based provision, or

(b) takeaway provision, either at school or at a proximate site.”

This amendment would require schools to consider other models of breakfast provision before seeking an exemption from the duty to provide breakfast clubs.

Amendment 215, page 43, line 21, at end insert—

“and if the condition in subsection (4A) is met.

(4A) The condition in this subsection is that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the appropriate authority of a relevant school has fully considered other forms of breakfast provision in accordance with subsection (2A).”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a school had considered other models of breakfast provision before granting an exemption from the duty to provide breakfast clubs.

Amendment 217, page 43, line 29, at end insert—

“551CA Promotion of supplementary models of provision

The Secretary of State must seek to promote and support the development of supplementary models of provision where appropriate, including

(a) classroom based provision.

(b) takeaway provision, and

(c) nurture group services.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to promote supplementary models of provision.

Amendment 218, page 43, line 37, at end insert—

“(d) matters arising from the Secretary of State’s duty under section 551CA.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to develop guidance in connection with the duty to promote supplementary models of provision.

Amendment 216, page 43, line 38, leave out “have regard to” and insert “comply with”.

This amendment would require schools to comply with guidance under section 551D.

Amendment 212, page 44, line 5, at end insert—

“551E Publication of data

The Secretary of State must acquire and regularly publish data on breakfast club provision in schools, including data on—

(a) the characteristics of those receiving breakfast in schools, including their eligibility for free school meals;

(b) uptake levels;

(c) satisfaction levels amongst pupils and parents; and

(d) any assessment of the impact of provision on attendance, behaviour, health and wellbeing.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to acquire and regularly publish data on breakfast club provision in schools.

Amendment 213, page 44, line 5, at end insert—

“551E Advice and support

(1) The Secretary of State must provide to any school to which the duty under section 551B applies advice and support services when requested by the appropriate authority of the school.

(2) Services provided by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (1) should include advice and support from individuals with specialist knowledge of the delivery of school breakfast provision.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make available to schools advice and support services delivered by people with specialist knowledge of the delivery of school breakfast provision.

Government amendments 132 and 133.

Amendment 1, in clause 24, page 44, leave out lines 22 to 29 and insert—

“(1) The appropriate authority of a relevant school may not require a pupil at the school to have to buy branded items of school uniform for use during a school year which cost more in total to purchase than a specified monetary amount, to be reviewed annually.

(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the monetary amount that may apply to—

(a) a primary pupil; and

(b) a secondary pupil.”

Amendment 191, page 45, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the appropriate authority of a relevant school provides second hand items which—

(a) comply with the school’s uniform requirements,

(b) are in an acceptable condition, and

(c) can be purchased for significantly less than the cost of buying the item,

the appropriate authority may require a pupil to have more than three branded items of uniform.

(2B) Where the appropriate authority provides new items which—

(a) comply with the school’s uniform requirements,

(b) are new, and

(c) can be purchased for significantly less than the cost of buying the item non-branded,

the appropriate authority may require a pupil to have more than three branded items of uniform.”

This amendment would allow schools to require more than three branded items of uniform if they are making them available, whether new or second hand, at a lower cost than buying non-branded items.

Amendment 190, page 45, line 15, after “school” insert

“except items of kit required when representing the school in sporting activities”.

This amendment would exclude items of PE kit required when representing the school in sporting activities from the limit on branded items of school uniform.

Government amendments 134 and 135.

Amendment 200, page 47, line 29, at end insert—

“(8A) Where a local authority refuses consent in respect of a child who meets the criteria for Condition A, the local authority must provide the parents or carers of the relevant child with a statement of reasons for the decision.

(8B) A statement of reasons provided under subsection (8A) must include an assessment of the costs and benefits to the child.”

This amendment would require a local authority to submit a statement of reasons when they do not agree for a child who meets Condition A to be home educated.

Government amendment 20.

Amendment 202, in clause 25, page 46, line 22, leave out “condition A”.

Amendment 201, page 46, leave out lines 23 to 28.

Amendment 224, page 46, line 23, leave out subsection (3).

Government amendments 21 to 24.

Amendment 22, in clause 25, page 46, line 25, leave out “337(1)” and insert “337”.

See the explanatory statement to amendment 20.

Amendment 173, page 46, line 32, after “action” insert—

“, or has previously taken action”.

This amendment would widen the definition of “relevant child” to include children in relation to whom a local authority has previously taken action under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 to safeguard and promote their welfare.

Amendment 192, page 46, line 37, at end insert—

“(c) providing services to the child or their family under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, or

(d) a local authority which has ever provided services to the child or their family under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.”

This amendment would ensure local authorities had to consent to withdrawing children from school if there is a child protection plan in place or if a child is a ‘child in need’, or if there has ever been a child protection plan in place, in relation to the relevant child or their family.

Amendment 4, page 47, line 19, at end insert—

“(6A) For the purposes of subsection (6), “suitable arrangements” in relation to the education of the child otherwise than at school mean arrangements appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child and the existence of any special educational needs.”

This amendment would clarify the meaning of suitable arrangements for the education of a child outside of school, which the local authority must consider when deciding whether to grant consent for withdrawal from school.

Government amendments 25 to 31, 136 to 138, 32, 139, 33 and 140.

Amendment 5, in clause 26, page 49, line 40, leave out “each” and insert “the”.

This amendment would remove the obligation on parents to provide information on the second parent.

Amendment 6, page 49, line 41, leave out “each” and insert “any”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.

Amendment 193, page 50, leave out lines 1 and 2.

This amendment would remove a requirement for the register of children not in school to include details of how much time a child spends being educated by parents.

Amendment 7, page 50, line 2, leave out

“each parent of the child”

and insert “a parent”.

See explanatory statement for Amendment 5.

Amendment 194, page 50, line 4, after “parent” insert—

“, in respect of each individual or organisation which provides such education for more than six hours a week”.

This amendment would ensure that information relating to short activities such as those operated by museums, libraries, companies and charities, as well as individual private tutoring activities, would only need to be recorded on the register of children not in school if they are provided for more than six hours a week.

Amendment 175, page 50, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) The requirement to provide information under subsection (1)(b) does not apply where a safeguarding concern in respect of either parent has been identified.”

Amendment 195, page 50, line 17, at end insert—

“(1A) The requirements of subsection (1)(e) do not apply to provision provided on weekends or during school holidays.”

Government amendments 34 to 39.

Amendment 196, in clause 26, page 51, line 18, at end insert—

“(2A) The Secretary of State may only require further information about children to be included on the register by introducing regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations, subject to agreement in Parliament, when seeking to require additional information to be included in the register of children not in school.

Government amendments 40 to 45.

Amendment 197, in clause 26, page 53, line 14, after “436B)” insert—

“but does not include any person or provider that is providing out-of-school education to home-educated children on weekends or during school holidays.”

This amendment would mean that providers of out-of-school education would not be required to provide information to local authorities in respect of education they provide on weekends or during school holidays to home-schooled children.

Amendment 198, page 53, line 21, after “way” insert—

“, but may not refer to an amount of time that is less than or equal to six hours a week.”

This amendment would mean that providers of out-of-school education would not be required to provide information to local authorities where they provide education for fewer than six hours a week.

Amendment 221, page 53, line 21, at end insert—

“, but may not refer to an amount of time that is less than or equal to six hours a week.”

Government amendments 46 to 59.

Amendment 199, in clause 26, page 55, line 22, at end insert—

“(9) The Secretary of State shall publish annually the GCSE results of children listed on the register.

(10) The Secretary of State shall ensure that the GCSE results of children on the register are included for each set of outcome data published by the Government.”

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to record outcome data for children on the register as a subsection of each set of performance data published by the Department for Education.

Government amendments 60 to 67.

Amendment 8, in clause 27, page 58, leave out lines 22 to 24.

This amendment, along with Amendments 9, 10, 11 and 12, would mean that preliminary notices would not be served on a child’s parent for not providing certain information.

Government amendment 68.

Amendment 9, in clause 27, page 58, line 27, leave out “, C or D”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 8.

Amendment 13, page 58, line 32, at end insert—

“(4A) For the purposes of subsection (4), “suitable education”, in relation to a child, means education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child and the existence of any special educational needs.”

This amendment would clarify the meaning of suitable education which the local authority must consider when serving a preliminary notice for a school attendance order.

Amendment 10, page 59, leave out lines 9 to 22.

This amendment is related to Amendment 8.

Amendment 11, page 59, line 24, leave out “to D” and insert “or B”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 8.

Government amendment 69.

Amendment 12, page 59, line 41, leave out “, C or D”.

This amendment is related to Amendment 8.

Government amendment 141.

Amendment 14, in clause 27, page 60, line 5, at end insert—

“(1A) For the purposes of subsection (1)(b)(i), “suitable education”, in relation to a child, means education appropriate to the age, ability and aptitude of the child and the existence of any special educational needs.”

This amendment would clarify the meaning of suitable education which the local authority must consider when serving a school attendance order.

Amendment 15, page 60, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 and insert—

“may consider—

(i) any of the settings outside the home where the child is being educated, and

(ii) where the child lives”.

This amendment would give local authorities the discretion to consider settings where a child is educated when determining whether a school attendance order should be served.

Amendment 16, page 60, line 10, leave out from “consider” to “so” and insert—

“whether the child is being educated in a way which is appropriate to their age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs they may have”.

This amendment would require the authority to have regard to section 7 of the Education Act 1996 in respect of parents’ duty towards their child’s education.

Amendment 17, page 60, line 15, leave out from “visit” to end of line 16 and insert “meet the child”.

This amendment would remove the requirement for the child to be seen in the home.

Amendment 18, page 60, line 17, after “refused” insert “without reasonable grounds”.

This amendment, along with Amendment 19, would, where a request to meet a child has been refused by a parent without reasonable grounds, enable an authority to consider that to be a relevant factor when considering whether to make a school attendance order.

Amendment 19, page 60, line 18, leave out “must” and insert “may”.

Government amendments 70 to 78, 142 to 144, 79 to 81, 145 to 148, 82, 149, 83 to 89, 150, 90, 151 to 153, 91 and 92, and 154 and 155.

Amendment 203, in clause 32, page 72, line 16, at end insert—

“(1B) Powers under subsection (1) may not be exercised in relation to an academy.”

This amendment specifies that the Secretary of State should rely on the provisions in Funding Agreements as regards to academies.

Government amendments 156 to 158.

Amendment 204, in clause 34, page 87, line 5, at end insert—

“(2D) The Secretary of State must issue guidance for relevant institutions on how subsection (2)(g) is to be understood.”

This amendment to allow independent schools not to have to notify the Secretary of State about change of use for buildings.

Government amendments 159 to 167.

Amendment 205, page 99, line 33, leave out clause 41.

Amendment 222, in clause 41, page 99, line 34, at end insert—

“(1A) In section 133 (requirement to be qualified), after subsection (5) insert—

“(5A) Regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section must have regard to—

(a) the availability of qualified teachers in each school subject, and

(b) the necessity or desirability of specific sectoral expertise for teachers in each school subject””

This amendment would require the Secretary of State to take account of the availability of qualified teachers in each subject, and the desirability of specific sectoral expertise when making regulations under clause 40.

Amendment 206, page 100, line 6, leave out clause 42.

Amendment 207, page 103, line 1, leave out clause 44.

Amendment 208, in clause 44, page 103, line 9, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 11 and insert—

“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”

This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty.

Government amendment 168.

Amendment 209, page 103, line 36, leave out clause 45.

Amendment 225, in clause 45, page 104, line 2, at end insert—

“(c) after subsection (1A) insert—

“(1B) Before deciding whether to issue an Academy order in respect of a maintained school, the Secretary of State must issue an invitation for expressions of interest for suitable sponsors.

(1C) The Secretary of State must make an assessment of whether or not to issue an Academy order based on the established track record of parties who responded to the invitation issued under subsection (1B) with an expression of interest in raising school standards.””

Amendment 223, page 104, line 21, at end insert—

“(10) Before the amendments made by this section come into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—

(a) the mechanisms, including Academy Orders, by which improvement of school standards can be achieved, and

(b) guidance on the appropriate usage of these mechanisms.”

Amendment 210, page 107, line 32, leave out clause 51.

Amendment 211, page 109, line 5, leave out clause 52.

Government amendments 169, 170 and 93.

Amendment 3, in clause 60, page 113, line 25, at end insert—

“(2A) Section [Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment] comes into force at the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”

This amendment is consequential on Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment.

Government amendments 94 to 110.

New clause 2—Review of the Act—

“(1) The Secretary of State must from time to time—

(a) carry out a review of the impact of the provisions of this Act; and

(b) publish a report setting out the conclusions of the review.

(2) A first report under subsection (1) must be published within 12 months of the passing of this Act, with subsequent reports published at intervals not exceeding 5 years.

(3) A report published under this section must, in particular—

(a) set out the objectives intended to be achieved by the provisions of this Act;

(b) assess the extent to which those objectives are achieved; and

(c) assess whether those objectives remain appropriate.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct regular reviews of the impact of this Act and publish reports.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I start by thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for their valuable contribution to the debate so far.

The Bill is for children—the clue is in the name. It is for their safety, their education and their future that we bring it forward. This Government are on a mission to break down barriers to opportunity for each and every child, and the Bill is a significant step on that path. I welcome the debate that the Bill has sparked. After a decade in which education was left on the sidelines, Labour is once again bringing it to the fore, and to the centre of national life—the place it always occupies under a Labour Government. Education is at the heart of how we ensure opportunities for the next generation.

[Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)]

On the Minister’s point about the last 10, 12 or even 14 years, would she join me in acknowledging that the schools in Walsall borough—a very diverse borough, with areas of real deprivation—outperformed national figures for the first time at the end of last year, with 91% of Walsall schools being graded good or better? That figure has steadily increased under not just a Conservative Government, but a fantastic Conservative-led council.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will always share in the celebration of schools that are doing well, and the right hon. Lady is absolutely right to celebrate the schools in her area. I do question, however, the shameless pride we sometimes see in the record of her Government; when they left office, England’s schools were getting worse, standards in reading, maths and science were down, roofs were crumbling, children were struggling, and a generation of children were absent from school. We are determined to tackle those challenges head-on. The education that we provide for our children is not just for their future, but for all of our futures. It shapes society today and the society that we want for tomorrow.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

It is good of the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, to give way. As I know her to be an honest person, will she at least share with the House the fact that schools in England are better today than they were in 2010? Picking some tiny subset of time to make out that schools are deprived is not a fair assessment. Schools are demonstrably better in England today than they were in 2010. Please, Minister, at least acknowledge that.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words and his assumption of my honesty. The fact is that one in three children starting school is not school ready. More than a third of children leave primary school without a firm foundation in reading, writing and maths. The disadvantage gap is widening. I will come on to what we want to achieve as a Government, but we are not satisfied, as Conservative Members appear to be, with leaving some of our children without the start in life that they deserve. We want the best for all our children, and that is what our changes will achieve.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I have given way to the right hon. Member. I will do so again later.

It is essential that every child and family has certainty that they can access a good local school—a school that will set high expectations and standards for all our children, enabling them to achieve and thrive. We are bringing forward legislation to achieve our reforms, but there are reforms that we can make for which no legislation is required. We are designing a school system that supports and challenges all schools to deliver for our children. We want a rich and broad curriculum, delivered by expertly trained teachers, who have a good pay and conditions offer that attracts and retains the staff that our children need.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

In that spirit, will the Minister look at my new clause 30, which calls on the Government to review the effectiveness and value of outdoor education and learning for young people in both primary and secondary schools? We have a mental ill health pandemic in this country and are trying to put that right. Will she acknowledge that building young people’s resilience through outdoor education is good not just for dealing with that, but for building young people’s ability to rely on others and themselves? That helps them in situations in which they are not comfortable, and when they go back to the classroom, they are more willing to learn. Does she see this as a moment in which to invest in outdoor education, in every part of the country?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman is incredibly committed to that cause—understandably so, as he comes from a part of the country that boasts incredible outdoor scenery, and activities that many of us, I am sure, have taken part in. He is right to want that for all our children. That forms part of the changes that we are introducing today, which will unlock opportunity for all children up and down the country. We want to create a floor, but no ceiling, for what schools can offer, and to enable healthy competition and innovation beyond a core set of frameworks and standards, so that we can improve all schools, and give them the freedom and ability to deliver the enrichment programme for which he so rightly advocates. We want high and rising standards for all children.

[Wendy Morton]

Does the Minister not understand that freedom and flexibility can come from allowing a school flexibility over its curriculum?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Try as the Opposition might to make their straw man argument, this Labour Government will demand high and rising standards for all our children. Recent polls of the profession show that, despite all the scaremongering, trust chief executive officers agree that there is nothing to fear from our sensible, pragmatic and common-sense measures, which will drive standards up in every school. Academies have grown from a Government-backed insurgency in our schools, and now make up well over 50% of our school system. That is not about to change. The shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that conversions to academy status are progressing faster under Labour Ministers than at any time since she joined this House, but it is right to look forward and consider how we will build a system fit for the next 20 years. The Bill is a step on that path. It recognises, in the words of one multi-academy trust leader, that parents deserve clarity and confidence in the standards that their children’s school upholds, and that is what this Government will secure.

The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), led yesterday’s debate on part 1 of the Bill. I will use my opening remarks to speak to the Government’s amendments to parts 2 and 3. Members commented yesterday on the number of amendments, but the number of substantive amendments is small, and I shall focus on them today.

Many Members have a great interest in city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts, and they have raised with me the excellent practice supported by those institutions. The Government amendments ensure that these schools can be named on school admission orders, and make it clear that families with children attending those schools will benefit from other measures in the Bill, such as those tackling the cost of school uniform.

Just as we are committed to working with all our schools, so too are this Government determined to work with the devolved Governments to deliver higher standards of education and care in all parts of the UK. The majority of today’s amendments concern the extension of the “children not in school” provisions to Wales. The Minister spoke yesterday of our pride in working with the Welsh Government. Labour Governments in both Cardiff and London will deliver our shared ambition for a society where all children receive high-quality education, wherever they grow up. We will build a Britain where children come first. These 91 amendments will extend all the “children not in school” measures to Wales. There is a legislative consent motion on this change, on which we are working very closely with the Welsh Government.

Amendment 140 will include the Scottish definition of schools in the definition of “relevant schools” for the “children not in school” register clause. This amendment ensures that only those children who are intended to be captured by “children not in school” registers are eligible for registration. Without the amendment, a child who lives in England, but who attends school full time in Scotland, would be required to be registered on their English local authority’s “children not in school” register, despite being in school full time.

The previous Government said that there was no space in their King’s Speech to ensure our children’s safety and education, but for this Labour Government, our children are a priority across the whole of the United Kingdom. Amendments 189 and 170 will ensure that the amendments made on corporate parenting extend to the whole of the United Kingdom. Education is an essential protective factor, which can shield our most vulnerable children from harm. The “children not in school” measures include the new requirement for parents of children subject to child protection plans or inquiries to seek local authority consent. However, not every child subject to these inquires will be at risk indefinitely, so it would not be appropriate or proportionate for those home-educated children who are not at risk and who are receiving suitable education to be placed in a school if it is not their parents’ preference. This Government will respect parents’ rights to opt for home education, while keeping children safe from harm and securing their right to education. Amendments 141 to 148 will ensure that this intention is reflected through the school attendance order measures in the Bill.

[Graham Stuart]

Will the Minister reassure home-educating parents that the requirements in the Bill will not be overly onerous? For instance, there is a requirement to record the time that each parent spends educating their child. Is that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year? How exactly would that work? Can she give us some reassurance that this measure can be made manageable and sensible, and will not be disproportionate?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Parents who are doing the right thing—home-educating their children and providing a suitable education in a safe environment—have nothing to be concerned about in relation to these measures. They are intended to ensure that no child falls through the cracks, and that is what we are delivering.

[Graham Stuart]

I am sure that the Minister intends to ensure that this does not happen, but would someone have to record all the hours and places in a week? I do not know how much the Minister knows about home education, but children are educated in all sorts of places. She has an opportunity at the Dispatch Box to say that she will come forward with regulations to ensure that they do not have to write down every time that they stop at an ice cream shop for some education about the vanilla flavour.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The amendments that I am addressing relate particularly to information sharing, which clearly the right hon. Gentleman has concerns about. Members on both sides of the House will be all too aware of the succession of tragedies that we have seen when children have fallen between the cracks in services that should be there to support them. The changes in the Bill are a reflection of this Government’s determination to bring that era of state failure to a close.

New clause 17 relates to the measures on opening new schools. Part 2 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which the Bill is amending, includes a number of relevant duties and powers where personal data might be processed—for example, where a proposal for a new school includes details of the relevant experience of the individual proposers. It makes clear that these powers and duties to give or publish information do not give anyone the right to give or publish personal data in a way that would breach data protection legislation. It applies a data protection override to the whole of part 2 and schedule 2 to the 2006 Act to cover all the information-related powers and duties in relation to opening, closing and altering schools.

Amendments 166 and 167 will ensure that restrictions on the sharing of data, obligations of confidence and other restrictions do not prevent the sharing of information where it is done to protect the welfare of children at registered independent educational institutions or in accommodation provided by schools or colleges. They empower Ofsted to disclose information to other inspectorates of independent educational institutions or of accommodation in schools or colleges, to enable their inspections and ensure high-quality services for our children. We anticipate that information to be shared for those purposes may include that which is given in confidence—for instance, concerns shared with Ofsted by whistleblowers. However, it is essential that information sharing that would help to protect a child’s wellbeing is not hampered. This imperative should override concerns about breaking confidence.

Amendments 90 and 151 are essential because of the Bill’s new powers for local authorities to share data from their “children not in school” registers with the agencies listed in section 11 of the Children Act 2004 and with Ofsted, in line with well-established practices, and to share information to protect and promote the wellbeing of children. The amendments will ensure that local authorities can have confidence that they are acting in the children’s best interest when doing so. There are well-established processes and existing expectations on these agencies to share information to protect and promote the wellbeing of children. Without these amendments, local authorities and these agencies may be concerned that they will be restricted in the information that they can share or receive from the “not in school” register. This information is relevant to help local authorities undertaking safeguarding, welfare and education relating to children, so it is crucial that it can be shared when appropriate.

These amendments serve to strengthen the Bill and ensure that it works as intended to keep children safe, to secure their education and to ensure that each and every family can access a brilliant local school, which is the cornerstone of opportunity for every child. I thank right hon. and hon. Members again for their scrutiny and challenge to the Bill so far. I look forward to listening to the debate, because there is no subject on which the House feels so passionately as the future of our children, and the steps that we must take to ensure thatsb each and every one of them can achieve and thrive.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

indicated dissent.

[Nick Timothy]

The Minister gave me a frown but she can intervene and admit the success of English schools in those rankings if she wishes.

It is why, when Michaela was once again selected—[Interruption.] Would the Minister like to intervene? No, apparently not. It is why, when Michaela was once again the best-ranked school in the country for progress, the Secretary of State could not bring herself even to congratulate Katherine Birbalsingh when I invited her to do so from these Benches. It is why the Education Secretary’s special adviser briefed the newspapers that Ms Birbalsingh is a liar, and why he briefed the newspapers against Amanda Spielman, former head of Ofsted, attacking her very personally as a “failure” and a Conservative.

As Margaret Thatcher, not just a former Prime Minister but a former Education Secretary, once said:

“If they attack you personally, it means they have not a single political argument left.”

And this is the truth: the Education Secretary does not have a single political argument for this disgraceful act of policy vandalism, but she is determined to ignore those who know better than her and push on. And the people who lose out, I am afraid, will be the children, from ordinary working families the length and breadth of the country, denied the best we can give them, unaware that a better and brighter future has been stolen from them thanks to nothing more than vindictive left-wing dogma.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, some of which have been well considered and delivered powerfully—others less so. This Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity by driving high and rising standards. That has to be the right of every child, delivered through excellent teaching and leadership, a high-quality curriculum, and a system that removes the barriers to learning that hold too many children back, all underpinned by strong and clear accountability. This Bill delivers the legislative elements of the broader vision that we are determined to deliver. As part of that, from next term free breakfast clubs will start being rolled out in early adopter schools across the country, including special schools and alternative provision settings. Members who tabled amendments 2, 219 and 220 are right that it is critical that the new breakfast clubs are accessible for children with special educational needs and disabilities. All pupils, including those with SEND and those in special schools, are already in the existing drafting of the clause. The need to get this right is why we are testing, and learning through, the early adopter programme.

On amendments 214, 215, 217 and 218, it is important to be clear on the distinction between food-only options being “alongside” or “instead of” the breakfast clubs. The club is as important as the breakfast. It gives children a settled start to the day and will secure improvements in attendance and behaviour, so the right approach is to legislate to give schools certainty of the minimum they need to provide and to work with early adopters to see how schools can maximise attendance at these clubs. To promote food-only offers may risk undermining the club element.

Let us be clear: we inherited a shameful legacy from the previous Government. Compared with when Labour last left office, 700,000 more children are growing up with their lives and life chances scarred by poverty. Children cannot achieve or thrive if the stressors and strains of growing up in poverty—of seeing their parents worried about putting food on the table, of being concerned about their younger siblings or whether their friends will judge them for not having the basics—are put on their shoulders. I know my hon. Friends share the Government’s concern for those children and their futures. We have set up the child poverty taskforce chaired by my right hon. Friends the Education Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary to look at how we can work across Government to tackle the causes and impacts of poverty on children’s lives.

The support the Government provide through their school food programmes to enable families to access healthy, nutritious food is being considered as part of that work. It is right that these considerable reforms, such as extending universal infant free school meals to all primary pupils, are considered through this route in a holistic way. Alongside the work of the taskforce, we are making progress to make it easier for families to access their entitlements, and I recognise the concern that right hon. and hon. Members have for children missing out.

The Government are pressing ahead with making it quicker and easier for families and local authorities to get children signed up for free school meals with our new eligibility checking system, which allows parents to check their eligibility and supports the local efforts we have seen to ensure that children receive that support. Further, I can confirm that our officials are working with the Government Digital Service in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore options on further data sharing to get more families signed up for their entitlements. We expect to have those provisions in place from next year, well ahead of the academic year beginning in September 2026.

Our officials are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to explore options on supporting enrolment through universal credit. My Department will monitor the impact of those policies and engage with local authorities to assess the impact of the changes on the uptake of free school meals. I would be happy to update the House on that work and write to the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), by way of doing so.

[Helen Hayes]

The Minister has set out the Government’s commitment to increasing the take-up of free school meals for children who are already eligible, as well as a number of practical measures the Government are taking to make registration easier. On the basis of what she has said today, I am content not to push my new clause 1 to a vote. However, the Select Committee will continue to closely monitor the take-up of free schools meals. Should the progress that the Minister expects to see be lacking, we will come back and press the issue of auto-enrolment again with her and expect that she looks at it again.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for her diligence both in her role as Chair of the Select Committee and on this issue in particular. We want children to receive the entitlements that will transform their life chances. Indeed, we will work closely with her Committee to ensure that we communicate well with the House on those important issues.

Our determination to deliver better life chances for our children does not stop there. As well as free breakfast clubs, we are delivering the holiday activities and food programme, enabling disadvantaged children and children identified by their local authorities to access healthy food and enriching activities in the school holidays. We will go further by supporting every child to achieve and thrive, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, and by putting money back in their parents’ pockets.

Another part of that picture is the sad increase in childhood obesity, which, unfortunately, the Conservative party did very little to address. We must ensure that, alongside clubs and activities, the food that children have at school is healthy and balanced, and embeds healthy eating habits. We must ensure compliance with school food standards. With reference to new clause 6, we are working with the Food Standards Agency to take forward the findings of the 2022-23 compliance pilot on how best to tackle the barriers identified. On new clause 54, I can confirm that the Government will continue to publish comprehensive data on free school meals, and on the holiday activities and food programme, to ensure that our approach is informed by the best available evidence.

Tackling child poverty is imperative for the Government and for our society. It goes beyond the provision of food to putting money back in families’ pockets, giving them choice and agency in ensuring that their children are set up for the future. Our action to cut the cost of school uniform is just another part of that picture. We are taking steps to cut the cost for families and put money back in their pockets. I know that hon. Members share the desire to reduce the cost of sending children to school, but a monetary cap, as proposed in amendment 1, would increase burdens and could create new financial penalties for schools.

For schools, that would mean having to review uniform policies annually to ensure that branded items are still within the cost cap, and, as a result, it could mean that they change their uniforms more frequently to remain within the cap. They would also have to review and possibly renegotiate contracts with suppliers more frequently. For parents, more frequent changes in uniform could increase the overall number of branded items that they have to buy while their child is at school. It could affect their ability to pass uniforms down as second-hand, and could increase their reliance on specific suppliers.

Our proposals provide clarity and certainty for schools and will enable parents to have greater choice in where they buy uniforms. Amendment 191 risks undermining that parental choice. Nothing prevents schools from providing branded items at a lower cost than generic alternatives and offering them as optional items. Under current VAT rules, all children’s clothing and footwear designed for children under 14, including school uniforms, already attracts a zero rate of VAT, which covers the intention of new clause 12.

On the point raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), we encourage schools to use sew-on badges, with a school name or logo, as a cost-effective way to brand uniform items. We want to give parents absolute clarity on what the limit means for them. That is why we have included those items, plus a tie, in the three-item limit for secondary education.

Let me turn to amendments 4, 13 and 14, and 16. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) for her intention to provide clarity on the interpretations of “suitable education” and “suitable arrangements”. It is important that there be consistency across local authorities in how they approach that. However, the amendments are not needed. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 is already clear that education must be suitable to a child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs they have. I want to reassure Members that we will make clear in statutory guidance for local authorities everything that they have to consider under section 7 when they are making decisions about the suitability of education.

Young Carers: Educational Opportunities

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is an honour and a pleasure to serve with you as Chair, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for securing this debate on such an important subject. I thank him for his continued contribution to improving the lives of young carers and for sharing his professional experience and expertise. Much as we lament that he is no longer a maths teacher, we celebrate the fact that he is here in this place putting his insight and experience to such valuable use.

I thank each and every child and young person across the country who selflessly cares for members of their family. Our Government will do everything we can to ensure that you and your families have the support you need at home and in your education. We are determined, through our opportunity mission, to break the link between a child’s background and their future success. We want every child, including young carers, to be set up for the best start in life so that they succeed and thrive at school. We will tackle the disadvantage that we know persists in far too many places through excellent teaching, high standards and the generational challenge of improving school standards. We will build on the opportunities for growth that every young person should have, so that they can follow the pathway that is right for them, whether through a high-quality apprenticeship or by going to college or university. Hon. Members have rightly drawn out those points in the debate.

Underpinning all that, the Government are determined to build family security and ensure that every child, whether a carer or not, has a safe and loving home. To do that, we must tackle the scar of child poverty, which impacts far too many children and young people and their families.

The impact of caring on children and young people’s education, which has been rightly highlighted today, has been hidden for far too long. Too many young carers continue to be invisible to their schools and wider agencies. They fall behind their peers and fail to reach their full potential and unlock opportunities, despite improvements in the assessment of their need for support. It is unacceptable that any child or young person who selflessly dedicates themselves to supporting ill or disabled family members goes through childhood without support themselves. We must ensure that no child faces these disadvantages alone.

Adding those young children to the schools census has, for the first time, shone a light on their education. It has raised awareness in schools and given us much of the evidence that we have used for this debate, but we know that not enough schools are identifying and accurately recording the information on young carers in the census, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow pointed out, with 72% not recording any young carers in 2024.

We expect that data to improve over time, as the data collection becomes better established, but we are looking at the ways in which the data is entered and whether we can bring in technical changes to support more accurate reporting. We obviously have to do that without overly burdening schools, and we are determined to get that right. We also want to undertake further analysis of the data, and develop and publish young carers’ data on attainment measures alongside the data that we already publish on population, absence, exclusions and suspensions. We will continue to work with organisations such as the Carers Trust, which I know works directly with schools, to raise awareness of these new data requirements and maximise the impact.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow that schools should consider how they are recognising and meeting the needs of young carers. As set out in the “Keeping children safe in education” guidance, we require designated safeguarding leads to undergo training to provide them with the knowledge and skills to carry out their roles, and that includes being alert to, and having good knowledge, understanding and awareness of the needs of young carers.

On training for teachers specifically, the mandatory initial teacher training core content framework sets out the minimum entitlement of knowledge, skills and experience that all trainee teachers need in order to be in the best position to teach and support the pupils in their schools. Courses have to be designed so that trainee teachers can respond in the best way possible to the strengths and the needs of all their pupils.

From September 2025, all trainee and early-career teachers will receive a training programme that is underpinned by the initial teacher training and early career framework. That will set out the core body of knowledge, skills and behaviours that defines great teaching. That includes teachers learning that pupils’ experiences at school, and their readiness to learn, can be impacted by their home and life circumstances, and it will include an awareness of young carers.

We recognise that continuous improvement is important in this area, which is why we have committed to review the early-career teacher entitlement in 2027, including the content of the initial teacher training and the early career framework, to make sure that it is providing that best possible support for new teachers. As part of that, we will obviously consider the issues raised in today’s debate.

Responsibility for young carers cuts across education and health into both children and adult social care. The Children Act 1989 and the Care Act 2014 place clear duties on both of those social care services to assess and support the needs of young carers. Being a young carer was identified as a factor in almost 18,000 children’s social care assessments in the year ending March 2024. The needs of those young carers and their families must therefore be fully recognised within the “Children’s social care national framework” statutory guidance on the purpose and principles of practice for social workers.

[Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) on securing this debate. The Minister is developing a really important point. When researching this topic, one of the things that terrified me was that 38% of carers report having had a mental health challenge while in an education setting. I therefore really welcome the Government’s promise to deliver a mental health professional or counsellor in every school. I just wonder whether the Minister could indicate when she thinks that might happen.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that people with mental health issues, including young carers and indeed the family members who they are caring for, are just not getting the help, support or care that they need.

We are absolutely determined to fix the broken system. We are already recruiting 8,500 more mental health workers, introducing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, rolling out Young Futures hubs in every community, and looking to modernise the Mental Health Act 1983. We recognise that we must address the significant challenge that my hon. Friend raises, and if we are going to tackle that issue and achieve the differences that we want to see for the young carers we are talking about today, that is a good place to start.

An important part of that jigsaw is our manifesto commitment to introduce a single unique identifier to improve information sharing and link multiple sets of data between Government Departments and organisations more quickly and accurately, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham), who is no longer in her place, rightly referenced in her intervention. That is why the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill introduces provision for that identifier in law. The Bill will pave the way for the consistent identifier to be specified and for organisations to be required to use it, and to create a clear legal basis for sharing that information where we know that it will promote the welfare, wellbeing and safeguarding of children, including young carers.

We fully support the “No Wrong Doors for Young Carers” memorandum of understanding developed by the Carers Trust on behalf of the Local Government Association. It is vital that we improve joint working between adult and children’s social care services, health and other key organisations. We strongly encourage local authorities to sign up to that.

For the first time, the school census data is evidencing the impact on attendance, exclusions and suspensions. We know that young carers are far more likely to be absent from school and to have higher rates of exclusion and suspension than their peers. We recognise that absence from school is almost always a symptom of wider needs within a family. It is often the best early indicator of an unmet need that is manifesting in school—or, indeed, by that child not being in school—in a family that may not be in contact with other services.

Our guidance on school attendance highlights that schools should see absence as a symptom and prioritise attendance with strategies such as attainment, behaviour and support for disadvantaged pupils, including the use of the pupil premium and support for young carers. Schools should also consider whether additional support from other external partners—including the local authority; children and young people’s mental health services, which were rightly referenced; and GPs and other health services—would be appropriate and make referrals where necessary. That is of particular importance for young carers. Schools might be the first place to identify where there is a lack of needed support for a family.

As other hon. Members have, I pay tribute to the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who spoke very powerfully about his family’s circumstances. We have no idea what may be going on in somebody’s home or life. Where that manifests in school, it is important to have the mechanisms in place to provide extra support where it might be needed. My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) spoke powerfully about that too. There is an awful lot of agreement in the Chamber today about what we want to see.

Daily attendance data collection has been established to ensure consistent recording and monitoring of pupil attendance. We need to support the identification of patterns of absence so that we can help schools and local authorities to make the appropriate interventions. We are absolutely determined to have more children in school; children cannot get an excellent education if they are not in school. Where that is because of responsibilities at home or because a child is a young carer, it is absolutely right that we use the available data to target that support effectively to ensure that every child can be in school and to unlock opportunities for them and their families.

We have allocated £2.9 billion in pupil premium funding this year to improve the attainment of disadvantaged children. As has been discussed, young carer status does not attract pupil premium funding, but evidence suggests that around 60% of young carers are eligible through free school meals entitlement. The guidance to school leaders is absolutely clear, however, that pupil premium funding should not be restricted to just those who have eligibility for the funding; schools must use it to support all pupils where they identify needs. That will include young carers.

Access to higher education should be based on ability and attainment, not background. Opportunity has to be available to all. We must ensure that no group is left behind; everyone should be able to fulfil their aspirations. In the summer, we will set out our plans for changes to higher education, which will include the part that we expect higher education providers to play in improving access and outcomes for all disadvantaged students. In the meantime, I welcome the development at the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service, better known as UCAS, to include young people with caring responsibilities. That inclusion, along with the school census, highlights the need for much better support for young carers. We especially want to ensure that they can make the best of their opportunities and possibilities beyond key stage 4.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow again for raising this important matter, and all hon. Members who have taken part in the debate. I also thank my hon. Friend for his many years of campaigning and work on the issue. Young carers contribute enormously to the wellbeing of their families and communities, and to society at large. That is why we are all here: they deserve to be championed and to be assured that society will reciprocate and support them in return. I acknowledge that the education system, in partnership with agencies, needs to improve to meet the developing needs of children, especially our young carers. They must be at the heart of our opportunity mission.

Finally, I thank all those committed professionals and volunteers who support young carers—may they continue to do so. As a Government, we will continue to work with them to improve outcomes. To the many teaching and pastoral care staff in schools, to the early help, youth and social work professionals, to those working in local councils and in carers organisations throughout the country: I feel confident that, with your continued dedication and a Government who are committed to improving the lives of young carers, we will make strides to support this important group.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I call Chris Vince, who has two minutes to wind up the debate.

Swann Report: 40th Anniversary

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) on securing this important and, indeed, timely debate on the 40th anniversary of the Swann report. The report is an important and stark reminder of the unacceptable treatment of young people, the majority of whom were from the Caribbean, who were inappropriately placed in so-called educationally subnormal schools during the 1960s and 1970s. My hon. Friend spoke passionately when sharing the experiences of Noel, Maisie, Rene and Denise, ensuring that their voices are heard.

The report serves as a timely reminder to all of us that the mistakes that were made must never be repeated and that we must never be complacent. No children or young people today should suffer from the structural barriers and entrenched racism that held back many in previous generations, and that legacy prevails today. Let it be clear that there is no place for hate or prejudice in our education system, and this Government are determined to root out structural inequality, as well as direct discrimination, to create a genuinely level playing field.

We cannot reflect on the Swann report without acknowledging the history of so-called educationally subnormal schools. We owe it to the campaigners who exposed this and refused to accept that these children were somehow less capable but rather the victims of racism. My hon. Friend mentioned people like Bernard Coard, and more recently the campaign has rightly received renewed attention through the work of the filmmaker Sir Steve McQueen, whose documentary “Subnormal: A British Scandal” shed light on the impact of these policies. It has also sparked important conversations about the ongoing challenges faced by black and ethnic minority students in our education system.

Britain has made strides in tackling overt racial discrimination over the past half century, but despite progress, there is no room for complacency or, indeed, self-congratulation. That is why this Government want to ensure that whoever you are and wherever you come from, Britain will respect your contribution and give you a fair chance to get on in life.

Our opportunity mission will build opportunity for all by setting up every child for the best start in life, helping them to achieve and thrive at school, build skills, and achieve growth and family security. Our work on the opportunity mission will focus cross-Government attention and collaboration on ensuring that every child and young person truly believes that success belongs to them.

We are more committed than ever to tackling the disparities in educational outcomes that persist. The picture of educational achievement across ethnic groups is complex, and different social, economic and cultural factors contribute to that, including parental income, parental career and educational achievement, geography, family structure and attitudes to education in the family and wider community. While overall the outcomes of some ethnic groups now compare positively with national average outcomes, for some groups, outcomes are significantly below average, or worse than for other groups throughout the education system, and that includes black Caribbean children.

One of the most significant factors affecting pupil attainment, which cuts across all ethnicities, is economic disadvantage. International studies show that attainment has broadly improved or remained stable over the last 30 years. However, disadvantaged pupils persistently perform significantly worse on average than their peers at all stages of their education, and there is considerable variation in attainment by region and ethnicity. That is just not acceptable, and it why this Government’s opportunity mission will break down barriers and the unfair link between background and success.

We are determined to help all children achieve and thrive. High and rising standards are at the heart of the mission, and are key to unlocking stronger outcomes. We will deliver those improvements through excellent teaching and leadership; a high-quality curriculum that seeks to deliver a rich, broad, inclusive and innovative education that readies young people for life and work, but that reflects the issues and diversities of our society, ensuring that all children and young people are represented; new regional improvement for standards and excellence—RISE—teams; and a system that removes the barriers to learning that hold far too many children back.

The Department for Education acknowledges that some groups of children have a greater likelihood of exclusion than others. Local context means that there are different patterns across the country, but we are determined to get to grips with the causes of exclusions to ensure that every child, no matter their background, can succeed. We have already committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school. We want earlier intervention in mainstream schools for all pupils, but particularly those at risk of exclusion.

We are absolutely committed to improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, and to strengthening accountability by reforming Ofsted. We will enhance the inspection regime by replacing the single headline grade with a new report card system, telling parents how schools are performing, and introducing a new annual review of safeguarding, attendance and pupil movement, including off-rolling.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

One of the lessons learned through the work that people have done on the ESN scandal is about the role of unconscious bias. We hear from parents, experts, teachers, educational psychologists and others that unconscious bias has the same cause as exclusions. One of the reasons why people are calling for an inquiry is to look at the lessons that can be learned by Ofsted and other agencies about how we support schools and address their practices.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. We have learned a lot in the past 40 years about unconscious bias and its impact. I will come on to the points he raised about the public inquiry, and the developments over the years—the protections put in place, which we need to work to enforce.

First, I want to touch on the challenges in the special educational needs and disability system today. We have a clear commitment to addressing those challenges. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings, because we know that early intervention will prevent unmet needs from escalating. It will support all children and young people in achieving their goals, prevent the gap in achievement from growing, and get that support to children at the very earliest stage, so that issues do not escalate.

Underpinning our ambition to create a fairer society is the Equality Act 2010, which enshrines in law that schools must not discriminate, in a number of respects, against a pupil on the grounds of a protected characteristic. Part 6, chapter 1 of the Act ensures fair treatment for all pupils by prohibiting schools from discriminating against, harassing or victimising pupils when it comes to education, access to benefits, facilities and services, exclusion, and other detriments. Additionally, the public sector equality duty requires schools to eliminate discrimination, advance equality of opportunity and foster good relations among people of all characteristics. That is what will underpin the improvements that we need to see.

[James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside (Kim Johnson) for securing this debate; she has made important points. The voices of the people affected 40 years ago will never have been heard. Does the Minister agree that poverty and deprivation—she talked about their impact on educational standards—often make it challenging for people to get their voice heard when there are problems? On the Equality Act, does she agree that in making the system fairer, we must ensure that when there are problems, people can speak out and know that they will be heard?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point. One of the reasons why we are so focused on early intervention, particularly for children who have experienced a more socioeconomically disadvantaged start to life, is to help children find their voice, so that they can speak up and be a part of the national conversation. That is what we want for every child in our education system.

I am conscious of time, and I want to address the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool Riverside raised about the public inquiry. The Government do not currently plan to establish a public inquiry on the policy framework surrounding the placement of children in schools for the so-called educationally subnormal in the 1960s and 1970s.

The 40th anniversary of the Swann report is a timely reminder to reflect on the progress that has been made, but also to ensure that mistakes made at that time are never repeated. It reminds us that there are always ways in which we must go further to ensure that no children or young people today suffer from the structural barriers and entrenched racism that held too many of our young people back in previous generations. I reassure my hon. Friend that we are not complacent; we are committed to delivering a fairer society with better opportunities for all. We firmly believe that every child should know that success belongs to them, which is why we must break down the barriers to opportunity. We are committed to changing the school system so that every child can achieve and thrive.

[Kim Johnson]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will. I have maybe a few seconds.

[Kim Johnson]

I just wanted to ask my hon. Friend whether she could provide some rationale for why the Government have not decided to go down the route of a public inquiry.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think we are out of time, but I am supposed to meet my hon. Friend next week. We can discuss this in more detail then, when we will have more time, but I look forward to continuing to work with her to redress race disparities and work on these issues, which I know she is rightly incredibly passionate about.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Sarah Green (Chesham and Amersham) (LD)]

1. What recent assessment she has made of the adequacy of exceptional funding for schools.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I am proud that while this Government have made tough decisions, we have protected key education priorities. There is additional investment in breakfast clubs, we are rebuilding and improving our special educational needs and disabilities system, and we are doing much more. After 14 years of decline, dither and delay, we are putting education back at the heart of national life and breaking down barriers to opportunity for every child in every community.

In response to the hon. Lady’s specific question, exceptional funding will continue to be allocated through local authorities on a case-by-case basis.

[Sarah Green]

Chesham grammar school, in my constituency, has received exceptional funding from the Department for some years to facilitate the hire of the neighbouring leisure centre’s sports hall for PE lessons. This year, the school’s application has been denied, despite its circumstances not having changed; it still has no on-site sports hall, and it still needs to fund the £65,000 hiring fees each year. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this particular case to ensure that the students of Chesham grammar school have access to the PE curriculum the school is required to provide come September?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I would be happy to arrange a meeting for the hon. Lady to discuss this matter further. Buckinghamshire requested for a local authority-owned facility to be funded, and, in line with the published guidance, rental costs for local authority-owned facilities are out of scope of the exceptional funding. However, local authorities should organise such provision within the cost availability for schools. I would be happy to discuss the matter further.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

Too many children in Southall go to school hungry, so I am delighted that the Chancellor and this Labour Government have chosen to triple investment in breakfast clubs, and that some of the first free breakfast clubs will open at Blair Peach and Wolf Fields primary schools in my constituency. Does the Minister agree that children learn better with a full stomach?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, which is why we are focusing our investment on breakfast clubs, which will ensure that children get not only a good start to the day with a full belly, but the support of a club that will help them to achieve and thrive.

[Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

2. How many schools left the breakfast club early adopters scheme prior to 24 February 2025.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

5. When she expects the interim report on the curriculum and assessment review to be published.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

Under the Tories, young people felt underprepared for their futures, and employers agreed that too many were leaving school lacking the skills needed in the modern workplace and ill-equipped for an ever-changing world. Through the independent curriculum and assessment review, Labour will bring forward a cutting-edge curriculum that ensures that all our children leave school ready for work and for life. The interim report will be published in the spring.

[Nick Timothy]

Parents and pupils will think that Ministers are on another planet when they hear such answers. SATs in years 2 and 6 mean that primary schools can be held accountable, and that we can measure progress data through secondary education, but the National Education Union says that SATs “do not benefit learning” and wants the Government to abolish them. Will the Minister rule out abolishing SATs in primary schools—yes or no?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Assessment clearly has an important role to play in supporting achievement and development within schools. We will consider how the reformed curriculum and assessment will affect schools. We recognise the importance of supporting schools through any changes that come forward in the interim and final report.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

From the rise of Andrew Tate to the re-emergence of Tommy Robinson, lots of young people I speak to are concerned about the extremism and conspiracy theories that they are encountering online. Last month, an important report from Public First and the Pears Foundation highlighted the need to do more to empower schools and teachers to tackle those things in the classroom. How will we use the curriculum review to make the most of this moment to empower young people to feel safer in online spaces?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We already provide guidance and resources to help and support teachers to recognise some of those challenges, to intervene swiftly where necessary, and not to tolerate a culture that excuses harm and the experiences of women. Schools must be places where all young people can thrive and be ready for work and life. We will ensure that the curriculum and assessment review reflects that.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

One reason why England’s schools rose up the international league tables in recent years is that they spent more time on core academic subjects such as English and maths. Having fallen sharply under the last Labour Government, the share of pupils doing double or triple science at GCSE has also gone up from 70% to 98%. Can the Minister reassure the House that time will not be taken away from the core academic subjects, and that their content will not be cut back, as a result of the curriculum review?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Government entered office to unprecedented challenges, including crumbling public services and crippling public finances. In the face of a significant financial black hole we are taking tough decisions to fix the foundations, but we are protecting key education priorities, rebuilding schools and rolling out breakfast clubs, and we will continue to do so.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

6. What steps she is taking to increase funding for SEND provision.

[Margaret Mullane (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)]

16. What steps she is taking to ensure adequate levels of high needs block funding.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

The Government inherited a “lose, lose, lose” SEND situation. The Tories even described it as such in their own words, with the Deputy Chief Whip saying that they should hang their heads in shame over what they left behind. Since entering government, Labour has restructured the Department to put SEND at its heart. We have invested £1 billion into services, and £740 million to create additional specialist places. But we are under no illusions that reform to the system is desperately needed, and we have brought in expert advisers to help us achieve that.

[Bob Blackman]

In London alone, the deficit for this year is estimated to be £313.8 million, but that will grow to £502 million next year unless more money is put in. Clearly, there is a problem that we need to address. Ideally, those with special educational needs should be taught in mainstream education. However, it is much cheaper for local authorities to have in-house provision and special needs schools in the borough, rather than send children to another more expensive borough. Harrow was granted a new special educational needs school under the last Government. Will the Minister confirm that it will proceed? It has the support of all the headteachers and cross-party support.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman described the challenge that resulted from 14 years under the previous Government. We recognise the strain that the rising cost of SEND provision is putting on local government, which is why we will be setting out plans to reform the SEND system, with further details to come this year, including how local authorities will be supported to manage their historical and accruing deficits. Decisions on new school provision and buildings will also be made in due course.

[Margaret Mullane]

Has the Department give due consideration to updating the allocation policy? It is currently based on historical funding, which leaves boroughs such as Barking and Dagenham at a disadvantage for SEN provision compared with inner-London boroughs.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The structure of the high needs funding formula is largely unchanged in 2025-26, as we take time to consider what changes might be necessary to ensure a fair system that directs funding to where it is needed and that will support our future SEND reforms. We will continue to consider where changes to the formula will be required. The Secretary of State visited a school in Dagenham in December and saw at first hand its excellent work and the difference it is making to children with special educational needs in my hon. Friend’s area.

[Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)]

I draw the attention of Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have a school in my constituency that is very good at helping students with education, health and care plans—so much so that it is struggling with the number of students who have EHCPs. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this issue and wider SEND issues in my constituency?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Government want to ensure that education, health and care plans are issued quickly, to help children and young people achieve and thrive. Officials work continuously with local authorities to offer support where there are issues with timeliness, to ensure that effective recovery plans are in place. I am sure that a meeting could be arranged for the hon. Gentleman to discuss his particular concerns in more detail.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

The deep crisis in our SEND system, which is one of both funding and delivery, is letting down far too many children, and requires urgent action. Will the Minister update the House on the timing of the Government’s plans for SEND, and provide assurances that there will be full engagement with parents, professionals and young people with SEND on any such plans?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We recognise the unprecedented pressures that local authorities are under and that the system does not currently deliver the best education possible for families, who want the best for their children, as quickly or thoroughly as it should. We will be announcing more details of reform plans this year. We consult continuously with families, representatives of families and local authorities, and we will work closely with my hon. Friend’s Committee.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

Across the 46 schools in Mid Norfolk, SEND provision is the No. 1 issue for parents, teachers and staff. Contrary to the party political broadcast from Ministers, in the last 14 years I was lucky to secure £7 million from the Conservative coalition for a new school and Conservative county council funding for a new school in Swaffham. Officials in the Department for Education have also been constructive in working on a pathfinder for rural hub-and-spoke support. Parents in rural areas really struggle. What are Ministers doing to take that forward to support small rural schools to access specialist help in hubs?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I know that the hon. Gentleman raises his concern in all sincerity. We will continue to work with all partners, parents, teachers, local authorities and indeed the NHS on how we reform our SEND system and ensure that the support that is needed reaches every part of every community. Our ambition is for a more inclusive mainstream school system that draws on the right education and health specialists to ensure that every child receives the support that they deserve.

[Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)]

Far too many children with complex learning disabilities and autism have been failed by the system and end up having a place not in their local community, but in institutions. That disproportionately affects black children, which is synonymous with the ’60s and ’70s when they were classified as “educationally subnormal”. Will the Minister explain what work is being done to identify the number of children who have been institutionalised? What work has been undertaken to review and amend those situations?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I know that this issue is important to my hon. Friend. She has, quite rightly, been raising it through a number of avenues. I will continue to work with her to ensure that we learn from the past, when far too many children were let down, and that, as we reform our SEND system, it is fit for purpose and serves every child.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Some of the huge cost pressures on SEND budgets are being driven by the lack of state special school places, with many councils forced to send children with complex needs to private special schools that can cost two to three times more than local authority provision. There are many brilliant independent special schools providing value for money, yet we know that some private equity firms are profiteering with upwards of 20% profit margins from the schools that they run. Why will Ministers not back Liberal Democrat amendments to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to include special schools in their proposed profit cap backstop for children’s social care providers?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that the hon. Lady knows brings forward really important changes that will keep children safe as well as reform our school system so that it serves all. We are focused on improving inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools and ensuring that we do have special schools that can cater for those with the most complex needs. Our priority is restoring the trust that parents should have that their child will get the support they need. We will do all that is necessary as part of our SEND reforms to ensure that that is delivered.

[Will Stone (Swindon North) (Lab)]

8. What recent progress she has made on determining the future of the institutes of technology.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to increase the number of children and young people who read for pleasure.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

High and rising school standards, and excellent foundations in reading, writing and maths, are a key part of our plan for change, which aims to ensure that every child gets the best start in life. Reading for pleasure is hugely important. Last month, Labour announced £2 million of investment in driving high and rising standards by embedding the success of phonics and ensuring that children and teachers develop reading skills. That includes children reading for pleasure.

[Tulip Siddiq]

When I was growing up in the 1980s, my nose was always buried in a book, and I let my imagination run wild. Nowadays, nine in 10 children have a mobile phone by the time they reach the age of 11, and statistics show that there has been a steep decline in the number of children reading for pleasure. Does the Minister agree that the likes of Roald Dahl and Jacqueline Wilson should not be replaced by a smartphone, and will she prioritise children’s reading for pleasure in the school curriculum?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am sure all Members joined in celebrating World Book Day in their schools. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and recognise how important it is to encourage children to read for pleasure. We know that reading for pleasure does happen in schools; teachers already encourage their students to listen to, discuss and read a wide range of stories, poems, books and plays. Importantly, this can also start at home, where parents can show how much they love reading. That is why I commend the LBC campaign, Kids Who Read Succeed, an excellent initiative to encourage reading and ensure that all children, parents and teachers get that message.

[Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)]

In all four libraries in my constituency this week, Mid Sussex babies and toddlers will be enjoying themselves at rhyme time; I hope that will be the start of many happy years of reading for my youngest constituents. Will the Minister join me in congratulating West Sussex library service on its 100th birthday last month, and will she commit to lobbying the Chancellor and the Deputy Prime Minister to ensure that my county council is sufficiently well funded to enable West Sussex to keep its 36 libraries open to the public for another 100 years?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely join the hon. Lady in congratulating the library service on its success. We all know how valuable our local libraries are in supporting and encouraging children and families to read. This is obviously a priority; we encourage reading for pleasure as much as reading for study, and it is something we clearly need more of—as is longevity, as she rightly says.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Minister, Neil O’Brien.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

I completely agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq). What is displacing reading for pleasure among children is smartphones and social media, including in schools. The Department for Education’s own behaviour survey found that nearly half of pupils in years 10 and 11 report that in most or all lessons, mobile phones are being used when they should not be. The guidance is not working, so why are the Government continuing to block our proposals for a proper ban on smartphones in schools?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Last year, under the previous Government, we saw the steepest year-on-year drop in the number of children and young people enjoying reading. The hon. Member should look at the record of his Government before pointing the finger. Phones should not be out in schools; it is a simple as that. Heads have the power to impose rules that suit their school community. Just a year ago, his Government claimed that they were “prohibiting” mobile phones in schools, and that their guidance meant a “consistent approach” across schools. Those were their words. The then Secretary of State said:

“We are giving our hard-working teachers the tools to take action”.

Was that Secretary of State right back then, when they backed the Tory Government’s measures, or is the hon. Member?

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

10. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to implement the plan for change mission entitled “Break Down Barriers to Opportunity”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

14. What steps she is taking to improve management accountability at multi-academy trusts.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

Accountability is non-negotiable for this Government, and we know that when standards slip, it is disadvantaged children who suffer. Through Ofsted reform, we are putting an end to high stakes, low information headline judgments, and in their place school report cards will provide clear detail on what schools are doing well, and where they must improve. High standards must be for every child in every school, so we are increasing the oversight of multi-academy trusts. Our focus remains on standards, not structures.

[Jack Rankin]

I have a case in my constituency where a governor feels that she was pushed out, having raised concerns about senior teaching staff. I understand from last year’s Sky News report that that may not necessarily be an isolated incident, as the accountability process potentially involves trustees marking their own homework. I am a strong supporter of academies, but there must be a balance. Will the Minister commit to bringing in a system of accountability and transparency to prevent such things from happening?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Where concerns about an academy are identified or raised, the Department works closely with the trust to ensure that all statutory requirements are being met. We are legislating in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for a more proportionate route to intervention in the event of trusts not complying with legal duties, or acting in a way that is not reasonable. I appreciate the complexity of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, and I would be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss it further.

[Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)]

In my constituency of Camborne and Redruth, a small number of multi-academy trusts are contributing to a high level of suspensions and exclusions. Will the Minister meet me to discuss that as a matter of urgency?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the concerns that my hon. Friend raises, and I would be happy to arrange a meeting to discuss them in more detail.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the shadow Secretary of State, Laura Trott.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Lady appears to have misunderstood both the aims and impact of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. We recognise that parents must have an opportunity to have good schools in their area, and that schools must be able to set admission numbers to meet the requirements of the local community. That is why we expect local authorities to co-operate with schools in their area, and expect all schools to co-operate with the local authorities, to ensure that the right number of school places are available in the areas where they are needed.

[Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)]

15. What steps she is taking to increase funding for agricultural education and training.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

Yesterday afternoon, a group of five and six-year-old special educational needs children had great fun running circles around their Member of Parliament on the football pitch at Matthew Arnold school in my constituency. Can Labour Front Benchers please use their good offices to encourage Surrey county council to continue to fund the star player programme, which provides great fun for the children and great respite for the parents?

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

That sounds like a lot of fun, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for participating. When it comes to supporting what we know are brilliant projects, local authorities are increasingly challenged as a result of the funding deficit that the previous Government left them, but I am sure they are keen to support those projects. We will work with local authorities on a continuous basis to ensure that children with special educational needs and disabilities get the opportunities they deserve.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

T5. A new report by London Councils predicts a collective decline in demand for reception and year 7 places over the next five years, causing concern about the impact on school standards and pupil attainment. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this important issue?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Government are working closely with local authorities to ensure that consideration is given to all options for utilising space, whether that is for early years provision or SEND provision, including merging provision where that is in the best interests of the community, and we will continue to do so. I or the early years Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the proposals.

[Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)]

Will the Secretary of State confirm how many SEND children are forecast to have to leave the independent sector and go into the state sector because of the imposition of VAT on fees? What will be the cost of that to the taxpayer?

--- Later in debate ---

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

T8. Parents in my rural constituency often express concerns about the limited school options, which almost always involve travelling some distance, but free transport is available only to the nearest school. What steps are being taken to review school transport costs overall? Will the limited school options available to rural parents be considered when updating the home-to-school travel policy?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Department’s home-to-school travel policy aims to ensure that no child is prevented from accessing education due to a lack of transport. I am keen to understand how well home-to-school transport is supporting children to access educational opportunity. I am working closely with officials on that, and I will bear my hon. Friend’s comments and concerns in mind as that work continues.

[Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I start by wishing you, Mr Speaker, and the House a happy Commonwealth Day.

Conservative-led Hertfordshire county council has done excellent work in supporting children with SEND, in my constituency and across the county, while seeing a 27% increase in requests for EHCPs in 2024. How is the Education Secretary directing her Department to provide further assistance to councils such as Hertfordshire, which is having to find more and more money from its budget to support students with SEND?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We recognise the challenges in the area that the hon. Gentleman represents. A SEND improvement board chaired independently by Dame Christine Lenehan oversees progress and provides challenge. We know that the system needs wholesale reform; we are working at pace and will make an announcement as soon as possible.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

T10.  Wednesday is Young Carers Action Day. Will the Minister join me in thanking young carers for all that they do, and commit herself to ensuring that there is greater awareness of them in schools? I must say that schools in my constituency do very well in that regard.

[Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

What resources are being provided to schools to support restorative justice initiatives in relation to knife crime, especially victim-led approaches such as workshops or peer mentoring to engage young people in conversations about its prevention?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We hear about far too many cases of young people being affected by knife crime, and I will take away the specific issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised. We are undertaking a curriculum and assessment review, looking closely at relationships, sex and health education, and considering how we can empower young people to be discerning and respect one another and create a society based on values and tolerance.

[Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)]

In each of the past two years, 40,000 teachers have left the profession owing to burnout and excessive workloads. What concrete steps will the Government take to address that, and how can we reverse the exodus from this fantastic profession?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Under the Tories teachers were overstretched and undervalued, so Labour is resetting the relationship with the profession. We are properly remunerating teachers by accepting the 5.5% pay rise that the last Government sat on. We are also keen to cut unnecessary burdens on teachers, harnessing artificial intelligence and supporting children with their mental health. The child poverty taskforce is determined to alleviate the burdens that originate outside the school gates.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

What steps are being taken to support voluntary organisations across the United Kingdom, such as AWARE in Northern Ireland, that offer education programmes to target depression and related mood conditions as part of mental health education in schools?

[Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)]

School staff in North East Hertfordshire work tirelessly in dilapidated facilities to support students with special educational needs while parents face absurdly long journeys to reach specialist schools, and in the meantime the old Roysia school site in Royston lies vacant. Will the Minister meet me to discuss the school estate in my constituency, and how we can use the Roysia site to meet local special educational needs?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We are very open to ideas for how we can best use the school estate to meet the needs of young people, including those with SEND. We are determined to deliver a wide range of reforms, and I—or, indeed, the early years Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can best use the resource in his constituency for the benefit of all the children who need it.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

Last week the Department announced that colleges would receive only two thirds of the funding that they were promised for the 35,000 additional 16 to 18-year-old students enrolled last autumn, a decision that could lead to thousands of prospective students being turned away this September. That follows a cut in the adult skills funding. Can the Secretary of State explain how cutting promised funds will help to address skills shortages in the economy and help to deliver the Government’s growth mission?

Education

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 3rd March 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the 13th sitting of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee on 11 February 2025.

[Catherine McKinnell]

On 7 January, the Home Secretary outlined in Parliament commitments to introduce a mandatory duty for those engaging with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, making grooming an aggravating factor to toughen up sentencing and introduce a new performance framework for policing.

On 16 January, the Home Secretary made a further statement to the House that before Easter the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations in the final IICSA report, which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North powerfully set out. All of those recommendations were for the Home Office, including on disclosing and barring, and work on them is already under way.

The Government will implement all the remaining recommendations in IICSA’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022, and as part of that we will update key Department for Education guidance.

[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 11 February 2025; c. 514.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):

[Catherine McKinnell]

On 6 January, the Home Secretary outlined in Parliament commitments to introduce a mandatory duty for those engaging with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, making grooming an aggravating factor to toughen up sentencing and introduce a new performance framework for policing.

On 16 January, the Home Secretary made a further statement to the House that before Easter the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations in the final IICSA report. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North spoke powerfully about a previous report.

The Government will implement all the remaining recommendations in IICSA’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022, and as part of that we will update key Department for Education guidance.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

The following extracts are from the eleventh sitting of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee on 6 February 2025.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Where the adjudicator upholds an objection to the published admission number, I cannot foresee a circumstance where that might be the case—

[Neil O’Brien]

I can see that very easily.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It will very much depend on the local context. Obviously, it will be for the adjudicator as an independent professional to take that decision for maintained schools. To be clear, for academies it will be for the Secretary of State to end a funding agreement, and for maintained schools it will be for the local authority to determine.

[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025; c. 430.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):

[Catherine McKinnell]

It will very much depend on the local context. Obviously, it will be for the adjudicator as an independent professional to take that decision on schools’ PANs, following an objection. To be clear, for academies it will be for the Secretary of State to end a funding agreement, and for maintained schools it will be for the local authority to determine closures.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The fundamental point is that school closures need to be managed very carefully through significant change or prescribed alteration processes.

[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025; c. 432.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):

[Catherine McKinnell]

The fundamental point is that school closures need to be managed very carefully through published closure processes.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is the local authority that has the responsibility to agree published admission numbers with the schools in its area.

[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025; c. 436.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is the local authority that has the responsibility to agree published admission numbers for the community and voluntary controlled schools in its area.

[Catherine McKinnell]

For other possible scenarios, we will provide guidance on the factors that we expect decision makers to take into account in the variety of decisions that may be required. That will be based on the existing guidance for opening new schools and will include the vision for the school, whether it is deliverable and affordable, the quality of the education, the curriculum and the staffing plans. Those are all the factors taken into account when determining the opening of a new school.

[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025; c. 438.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):

[Catherine McKinnell]

For other possible scenarios, we will provide guidance on the factors that we expect decision makers to take into account in the variety of decisions that may be required. That will be based on the existing guidance for opening new schools and will include the vision for the school, whether it is deliverable and affordable, the quality of the education, the curriculum and the staffing plans. Those are all factors taken into account when determining the opening of a new school.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill

The following extracts are from the twelfth sitting of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill on 6 February 2025.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Regardless of the admissions policy set by the admission authority, faith schools remain subject to the same obligations as any other state-funded school to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs, and to teach a broad and balanced curriculum. That will apply to all schools as part of the changes introduced by this Bill.

[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025; c. 454.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):

[Catherine McKinnell]

Regardless of the admissions policy set by the admission authority, faith schools remain subject to the same obligations as any other state-funded school to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs, and to teach a broad and balanced curriculum. That already applies to all schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

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.

[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025; c. 467.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):

[Catherine McKinnell]

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 care leaver is in scope of the corporate parenting duty, they cannot be found to have become intentionally homeless.

[Catherine McKinnell]

In response to the question from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, the amendment will impact children classed under the Children Act 1989 as relevant children or former relevant children who present for homelessness assistance. That would cover young people aged 16 to 24 who have been looked after by a local authority for a period of at least 13 weeks, or periods that amount to 13 weeks, since their 14th birthday, at least one day of which must have been since they attained the age of 18.

[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025; c. 468.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):

[Catherine McKinnell]

In response to the question from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, the amendment will impact children classed under the Children Act 1989 as relevant children or former relevant children who present for homelessness assistance. That would cover young people aged 16 to 24 who have been looked after by a local authority for a period of at least 13 weeks, or periods that amount to 13 weeks, since their 14th birthday, at least one day of which must have been since they attained the age of 16.

SEND Education Support

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter) on securing this incredibly important debate, and on the way in which she set out her constituents’ case. Like many other hon. Members in the Chamber, she clearly has a keen interest in the support and services that are made available to children and young people with SEND.

I also thank hon. Members from both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), for recognising that work is needed to put right the terrible situation currently faced by far too many children in the system, and that we need to improve it. Doing so is a vital part of the Government’s opportunity mission. We want to break the link between background and opportunity, and that means giving every child, including children with special educational needs and disabilities, the very best start in life.

[Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)]

On the point about giving children the best start at the earliest stage, what are the Minister’s thoughts on properly integrating family hubs into education, health and local authorities, to ensure seamless support for children with SEND?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The Government are committed to expanding the work of the family hubs to ensure that every community has support to create that earliest intervention. Many hon. Members have mentioned the importance of early intervention. We agree that it is vital, but I will come to that in more detail. She tempts me down a different path from the one I was going down.

I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that addressing challenges in the SEND system is a priority for me, for the Department for Education and for the Government. We recognise that this is a whole-Government effort, including the Department of Health and Social Care, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport. Many hon. Members raised challenges around school transport. It is a priority to fix that system and get the best outcomes for every child. I also reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal that I would be delighted to visit her constituency, which I hope can be arranged.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

More than one in three SEND children in Oldham is diagnosed with autism or a neurodivergent condition, which is above the national average. We know that there are implications for educational attainment and work. Has there been an assessment of the increase in children with autism or neurodivergent conditions? If so, what were its conclusions?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. The additional recognition of special educational needs and disabilities has highlighted not only the extent of the challenge to ensure the best offer for all children, including those with SEND, but that we should give every child the best education, regardless of their special educational needs and disabilities. Our ability to identify aids us to have the infrastructure and support in place to ensure that every child has the best start in life. I will talk in more detail about how we do that, as many hon. Members have asked.

We have reached the point of recognising the challenge, although the surprising contribution of the Conservative Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), was a caveat to that. In the context of this debate, where we recognise that there is a shared challenge, his contribution seemed to skip from 2014 to the present day, as though the previous 10 years had not happened. It bore no recognition of that, despite his former Secretary of State for Education, Gillian Keegan, acknowledging that the system presided over in the10 years prior to 2024 was “lose, lose, lose”. I agree that we should not be arguing about who created the challenges; we should be getting down and resolving the challenges together. I did not think that the hon. Gentleman’s contribution was respectful of the positive contributions that other Members from both sides of the House had made.

[Alex McIntyre]

I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having the confidence and courage to accept interventions, unlike some hon. Members. Does she agree that the shadow Minister’s comments showed how out of touch the Conservative party is? Parents have been in tears in my surgeries due to the system that the Conservatives left behind.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate what my hon. Friend says. I am happy to take interventions, but I have to cover a lot of issues that hon. Members have raised. I hope that, in the time we have left, I have the opportunity to do so.

I know we all agree that every child deserves the opportunity to achieve, thrive and succeed. Where possible, as highlighted by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns), that should be within a mainstream setting with their friends. However, we are aware that there are significant challenges currently in achieving that. That is why we are prioritising early intervention, which a number of hon. Members have raised, and inclusive provision within mainstream settings.

We know that providing early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating and supports children to achieve their goals and thrive alongside their peers. We are really committed to working to deliver that for every child in every community. We are doing so by increasing high needs funding by £1 billion, which brings the total funding to £11.9 billion. Suffolk county council is allocated £124 million through the high needs funding block. That is an increase of £10.3 million and a 9% increase per head for two to 18-year-olds.

We know that the high needs funding formula needs to be looked at. It has been largely unchanged because we needed to prioritise making sure that we create a fair funding system, and direct funding to where it is needed and can make the biggest impact. That is why we are allocating funding towards capital to ensure that we have places available where they are needed. The £740 million of high needs capital can be used by local authorities—we will announce the allocations in due course—to deliver new places within mainstream settings, special schools and other specialist settings, and to improve the suitability and accessibility of current buildings. It will also help to tackle the issue of transport, which many hon. Members have raised. If we have mainstream availability of specialist support within a local community, there will be no need to travel such distances.

[Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am sorry; I will not be able to respond to hon. Members’ queries and concerns if I give way again.

EHCP timeliness was raised by a number of hon. Members, including by my hon. Friends the Members for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson), whose contribution was excellent, and the hon. Member for South West Hertfordshire (Mr Mohindra). We monitor the timeliness of ECHPs, but there is a balance to be struck between issuing them within the timeframes required, which we need to see, and making sure that they achieve the outcome that we want—namely, better opportunities for the children that they are intended to serve. We will continue to monitor that and work with local authorities to improve it.

My hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal will be aware of the key role that alternative provision settings such as pupil referral units play in supporting vulnerable children and young people with SEND. We want them to work together with mainstream settings to make sure that we have targeted interventions and support to improve behaviour and attendance and to reduce the risk of exclusions, which my hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin raised.

Speech and language is an important opportunity to intervene at the earliest possible stage for children. We know that children need to find their voice and that an increasing number of children are starting school without having had the support to do that previously. That is why we have prioritised the early language and support for every child programme. We are trialling new and better ways to ensure that we can reach communication needs in early years and primary schools.

I am very conscious of time. I want to let the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) know that I take on board the concerns that he raised. The abuse that he described is abhorrent and disturbing, and not within the current regulations or rules. We are running a consultation on the use of reasonable force, which is open until 29 April 2025 and contributions are welcome.

I am afraid that I have to draw to a close. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed; they made the case for their constituents well. I recognise the work of all those in our education, health and care systems who work with our children and young people with SEND in Suffolk and across the country. We need to deliver the very best for our children and young people, and to give them the best start in life. I am sure that, together, with this determined effort, we can do that.

Education

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 25th February 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the fifth sitting of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee on 28 January 2025.

[Catherine McKinnell]

As hon. Members have rightly said, it is really important that care leavers are supported to get into education, employment or training—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire clearly said that as well. That is why a care leaver who starts an apprenticeship may be entitled to a £3,000 bursary, why local authorities must provide a £2,000 bursary for care leavers who go to university, and why care leavers may be entitled to a 16-to-19 bursary if they stay in further education.

[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 189.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):

[Catherine McKinnell]

As hon. Members have rightly said, it is really important that care leavers are supported to get into education, employment or training—the right hon. Member for East Hampshire clearly said that as well. That is why a care leaver who starts an apprenticeship may be entitled to a £3,000 bursary, why local authorities can provide a £2,000 bursary for eligible care leavers who go to university, and why care leavers may be entitled to a 16-to-19 bursary if they stay in further education.

SEND Provision: Derbyshire

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) on securing an Adjournment debate on this important subject, and on her powerful and heartfelt speech. I know that she, like all Labour Members here today, has a real interest in and passion for supporting families in her constituency who are navigating the special educational needs and disabilities system, and all the challenges that clearly presents.

I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), for Derby North (Catherine Atkinson), for North West Leicestershire (Amanda Hack) and for Rushcliffe (James Naish) for their interventions, and I thank my hon. Friends the Members for High Peak (Jon Pearce), for Erewash (Adam Thompson), for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), for Bolsover (Natalie Fleet), for North East Derbyshire (Louise Jones) and for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) for their powerful speeches. Hon. Members have spoken incredibly powerfully for their constituents, and they are very much heard.

As hon. Members recognise, improving the special educational needs and disabilities system across the country is a priority for the Government. We want all children to receive the right support to succeed in their education, and to lead happy, healthy and productive adult lives. Every child, regardless of their individual needs, deserves the opportunity to achieve, thrive and succeed. At the moment, we know far too many children are not being given that chance, and far too many families have been let down, year on year, by a system that is not meeting those needs.

Over 1.6 million children and young people in England have special educational needs, a figure that is increasing year on year, with more children requiring SEND support, and even more children and young people being identified as having a specific need that requires an education, health and care plan. As the Education Secretary mentioned in her keynote speech at the Centre for Social Justice just last week, the recognition of those additional needs and the debate around how we support children with SEND is a sign of progress, but clearly there is much more to do.

[Jonathan Davies]

One of the reasons the county council has got into this mess is because it was around a decade since Ofsted’s previous inspection of its SEND provision. When I approached Ofsted, officials said the reason is that that was what Ofsted had been contracted to do by the Government. We need more agile regulation, as we discussed on the Second Reading of the Data (Use and Access) Bill today, but does the Minister have plans to look at Ofsted’s regulatory model and the frequency with which it inspects? If the provision in Derbyshire had been inspected earlier, we might have less of a problem to deal with now.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We are looking across the system at how to reform it to make it better for families and for children who experience the need for additional support, and to improve outcomes. To assess all those issues, we need an inspection and accountability framework that drives improvements. I will come to the specific issues raised in the inspection of Derbyshire county council. It was inspected under a new inspection framework that threw significant light on the current situation, as exemplified by the various heartbreaking stories hon. Members have shared today.

Improving the SEND system is a vital part of the Government’s opportunity mission. We are determined to break the unfair link between background and opportunity by giving every child with SEND, along with all other children, the best start in life. We are prioritising early intervention and inclusive provision in mainstream settings, as we know that early intervention prevents unmet needs from escalating. That will support all children and young people to achieve their goals alongside their peers.

We know it takes a vast workforce, from teachers to teaching assistants, early years educators to allied health professionals, to help all children to achieve and thrive. We are investing in each of those areas to improve outcomes and experiences across the country. We are committed to working with the sector and our partners to ensure that our approach is fully planned and delivered in partnership.

We have already begun the work by appointing a strategic adviser on SEND to engage with sector leaders, practitioners, children and families. We have established an expert advisory group for inclusion, to improve the mainstream education outcomes and experiences for those with SEND, and we have set up a neurodivergence task-and-finish group to provide a shared understanding of what provision and support in mainstream educational settings should look like for neurodivergent children and young people within an inclusive system.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley understandably raised concerns about education health and care plan timelines. The plans have significantly increased in number, year on year, since their introduction in 2014, with nearly 600,000 children and young people with an EHCP as of January last year. Over time, flaws and a lack of capacity in the system to meet lower-level need have added additional strain on specialist services, and that has had a detrimental impact on the experience of those accessing the EHCP process. There has been late identification of need and intervention, low parental confidence in the ability of mainstream settings to meet that need, inefficient allocation of resources across the system, and inconsistency in practice and provision based on location. Hon. Members have expressed the particular challenges in Derbyshire that have clearly manifested over many years. Those have all contributed to pushing up costs and have created an increasingly unsustainable system.

The latest data shows that in 2023, just 50.3% of EHCPs were issued within the 20-week statutory timeframe. That is leaving young people and their families without appropriate and adequate support. The Government want to ensure that EHC needs assessments are progressed promptly and plans are issued so that children and young people get the support they need to help them achieve positive outcomes. We know that local authorities have been struggling to meet the increased demand for EHCPs, so we are constantly working with them to improve those response times.

The Government are acutely aware of the challenges that families face in accessing the support their children need—and actually, of how adversarial the EHCP process can be. Independently commissioned insights that we published last year showed that if we can get those extensive improvements to the system, if we can use early intervention better and if we can better resource mainstream schools, that will have a significant impact. More children will have their needs met without having to even go through an education, health and care plan process, because their needs will be met in a mainstream setting with their peers. We are listening to parents, local authority colleagues and partners right across education and, as hon. Members have rightly identified, across health and social care, because we need to work out how to address and improve the experience of the EHCP process for families, and reflect on how we can roll out practice that will be more consistent nationally.

Every child and young person should have access to high-quality services to set them up for life, for work and for the future, and local authorities and their partners are key to ensuring that children can access the support they need. Ofsted and the Care Quality Commission jointly inspected Derbyshire in September 2024 and found widespread and systemic failings. That led to significant concerns about the experiences and outcomes of children and young people with SEND across the county of Derbyshire. The published report made it clear that the local area partnership, which consists of the local authority and the integrated care board, must address those concerns urgently and identified six areas for priority action. As a result of the inspection, His Majesty’s chief inspector required the local area partnership to prepare and submit a priority action plan to address the identified areas.

A team has been put in place to track those outcomes against the action plan. Progress is being monitored and the Department for Education has appointed a SEND adviser to work collaboratively with an NHS England adviser to challenge, support and work with Derbyshire county council and the integrated care board to drive those improvements. I am sure that that is good news for hon. Members to hear, but clearly that progress needs to be made as quickly as possible, because as hon. Members rightly set out, families cannot wait any longer for the support they need.

We absolutely want more children and young people to receive the support they need, and ideally to thrive in their local mainstream settings with their peers, so that they do not need to travel long distances to find specialist places that can accommodate them and they can have their needs met with their friends in their local school. We know that many mainstream settings already go above and beyond to deliver that specialist provision locally through resource provision and SEN units, and we know as well that there will always be a place for special schools and colleges for children and young people who have the most complex needs. It is vital that we see the investment that is needed to create the new places in mainstream and special schools and in specialist settings. That is why we have announced £740 million of high needs capital for 2025-26. We will set out those allocations to local authorities in due course.

Hon. Members have raised concerns about the underspend in Derbyshire county council and we really need to see that money invested in those specialist places, whether in mainstream or special schools, to make sure that places are available with the support that children need. The Government are absolutely committed to working with Derbyshire county council, and with school leaders and sector partners locally and nationally, to develop and improve the inclusive education within mainstream settings that every child deserves.

[James Naish]

I thank the Minister for speaking so clearly on this important issue. On the intervention I made earlier about empty classrooms, we are seeing in Nottinghamshire that there is not the demand for nursery places that there desperately is in other parts of the country. Does the Department have any appetite to think about how those spaces could be used to try to deal with the issue we are talking about today?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises a really important point that manifests itself in many parts of the country: we have a shift in demographics and, as he identifies, early years places are opening up more quickly in some parts of the country than in others. That is why the Secretary of State announced the funding to create early years places in particular, but it is also why we have this capital funding that will be allocated to local authorities so we can utilise all the available space to make sure that we can provide these specialist places. Obviously we want local authorities to be able to apply the funding in the way that will best meet the needs in their local area. That might mean repurposing space to create a specialist unit within a mainstream school, creating a more accessible space within a mainstream school or creating specialist places in whatever way a school is able to. If a local authority is able to support them, that funding will be available to create those spaces. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to that.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley for bringing this debate forward. Members here tonight are clearly very grateful for the opportunity to air their constituents’ concerns and for this issue to be highlighted, and it is absolutely right that it is, because SEND outcomes in Derbyshire and nationally are an issue we all care passionately about. I acknowledge the challenges that far too many families face when seeking to secure the right support for their children with special educational needs and disabilities, and that the system absolutely needs to improve, and we are determined to make progress and to make the change.

I want to conclude, as always, by recognising all those who work in our education, health and care systems in the interests of our children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, in Derbyshire and right across the country. We need to deliver the very best for all of our children and young people, including those with SEND. We need to give them the very best start in life, and prepare them for life, work and the future. I thank all who work to deliver that tirelessly day in, day out. Despite the challenges set out tonight, I am confident that together, with determination, we can see that change.

Question put and agreed to.

Education

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the statement on School Accountability and Intervention on 3 February 2025.

[Catherine McKinnell]

… Alongside a reformed Ofsted, we are creating the RISE teams, comprised of leaders with a proven track record of improving school standards. Those teams will draw on bespoke improvement plans for stuck schools, with significant investment. The previous Government made £6,000 available for stuck schools; under this Government, it will be more like £100,000 per school to drive that improvement.

[Official Report, 3 February 2025; Vol. 761, c. 570.]

Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):

[Catherine McKinnell]

… Alongside a reformed Ofsted, we are creating the RISE teams, comprised of leaders with a proven track record of improving school standards. Those teams will draw on bespoke improvement plans for stuck schools, with significant investment. The previous Government made £6,000 available for stuck schools; under this Government, it will be up to £100,000 per school to drive that improvement.