Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this it will be convenient to discuss:

New clause 44—Flexibility to not follow the National Curriculum—

“(1) The Education Act 2002 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 79(4), omit from ‘include’ to the end of paragraph (a).

(3) In section 80—

(a) in subsection (1)(b), omit ‘known as’ and insert ‘which may be, or include,’;

(b) after subsection (1), insert—

‘(1A) Any curriculum taught under subsection (1)(b) which is not the National Curriculum for England must not be of a lower standard than the National Curriculum for England.

(1B) All curriculums must be assessed by the Chief Inspector to be of high quality.’.

(4) In section 88—

(a) in subsection (1), omit from ‘that the’ to ‘is implemented’ and insert ‘a balanced and broadly based curriculum’;

(b) in subsection (1A), omit from ‘that the’ to ‘are implemented’ and insert ‘appropriate assessment arrangements’.”.

This new clause would allow local authority maintained schools to offer a curriculum that is different from the national curriculum but that is broad and balanced. It extends academy freedoms over the curriculum to maintained schools.

New clause 53—Exemption from requirement to follow National Curriculum in the interests of improving standards—

“In the Education Act 2002, after section 95 (Appeals against directions under section 93 etc) insert—

‘95A Exception in the interests of improving standards

Where the proprietor of an Academy school or a local authority maintained school believes that the raising of standards in the school would be better served by the school’s curriculum not including the National Curriculum, any provisions of this Act or any other Act do not apply so far as they require the school’s curriculum to include or follow the National Curriculum.’”.

New clause 54—Exemption from requirement to follow National Curriculum where Ofsted approves curriculum—

“In the Education Act 2002, after section 95 (Appeals against directions under section 93 etc) insert—

‘95A Exemption where Ofsted certifies curriculum as broad and balanced

Where—

(a) the proprietor of an Academy school or a local authority maintained school believes that the raising of standards in the school would be better served by the school’s curriculum not including the National Curriculum, and

(b) His Majesty’s Chief Inspector has, within the previous ten years, certified that the school provides its pupils with a broad and balanced curriculum, any provisions of this Act or any other Act do not apply so far as they require the school’s curriculum to include or follow the National Curriculum.’”.

New clause 65—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 66—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.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

We move on to new clause 53, tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. Removing the entitlement to a high-quality core curriculum for all children by allowing schools, whether they are maintained or academies, to deviate from the national curriculum, could create an unequal system where the content of a child’s core education varies widely.

Let us be clear that what we are talking about: a requirement to teach the national curriculum does not create a ceiling; it does not force schools to teach in a particular way or prevent them from adapting or innovating, and it does not stop them adding extra content that works for their pupils. It simply says that, as a nation, this is the core knowledge and skills that we expect schools to teach their pupils, whatever their background. New clause 53 would allow a school to decide not to teach its pupils some important core content that all other children are being taught. We do not think that parents want their children’s school to be able to do that. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.

The hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich also tabled new clause 54. The national curriculum is the cornerstone of the education system. We are reforming it and extending it to cover academies to ensure that every child, regardless of their background or the school they attend, receives the best possible core education. I have set out already why allowing schools to opt out of the national curriculum creates a risk of an unequal system, where not all children can benefit from a strong foundation of the reformed curriculum and what it will provide, so I will focus on the additional elements in the new clause, particularly the Ofsted certifications.

There are unanswered questions about how this provision would work in practice. We have moved from single headline judgments in Ofsted inspections, but the new clause seeks to create a single judgment that would have a material impact on a school for the next decade. The fact that a school offered a broad and balanced curriculum, as all schools must, at some point in the previous 10 years does not mean that it currently does or will do in the future if it chooses not to follow the national curriculum. If, subsequently, Ofsted found the school’s curriculum was not up to scratch, the school would have the disruption and cost of suddenly having to teach the national curriculum again. Allowing more schools to deviate from the national curriculum just as we are reforming it creates a risk that some pupils will not be taught the core knowledge and skills that every young person deserves to be taught. I again invite the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.

New clause 65 was tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Ensuring that schools can adapt their teaching to unique contexts and circumstances is clearly important, but the current framework already provides the flexibility that schools need and value. The national curriculum subject programmes of study already give schools the flexibility to tailor the content and delivery of the curriculum to meet the needs of their pupils and to take account of new developments, societal changes or topical issues. The reformed national curriculum will help to deliver the Government’s commitment to high and rising standards, supporting the innovation and professionalism of teachers while ensuring greater attention to breadth and flexibility. The proposed core framework would add significant extra complexity to the national curriculum, which already has core and foundation subjects, and would risk being confusing for schools. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.

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

New clause 54 would allow academies to continue to exercise freedom in the matter of their curriculum where Ofsted is satisfied that the curriculum is broad and balanced. New clause 53 would allow ongoing curriculum freedom in academies where it is needed in the interests of improving standards. New clause 44 would extend academy freedoms to local authority maintained schools, allowing them to offer a curriculum that is different from the national curriculum, as long as it is broad and balanced and certified by Ofsted.

The imposition on all schools of the—currently being rewritten—national curriculum was raised in our evidence session right at the start of this Bill Committee. As Nigel Genders, the chief education officer of the Church of England noted:

“The complexity is that this legislation is happening at the same time as the curriculum and assessment review, so our schools are being asked to sign up to a general curriculum for everybody without knowing what that curriculum is likely to be.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 64.]

There is a parallel here in that we are also being asked to sign up to sweeping reforms to the academies order at the same time as the Government are changing the accountability framework, as the hon. Member for Twickenham correctly pointed out in the Chamber yesterday. Several school leaders gave us good examples showing why it is a mistake to take away academy freedoms to vary from the national curriculum. As Sir Dan Moynihan, the leader of the incredibly successful Harris Federation, explained to us:

“We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects. Of course, that is subject to Ofsted. Ofsted comes in, inspects and sees whether what you are doing is reasonable.

“That flexibility has allowed us to widen the curriculum out again later and take those schools on to ‘outstanding’ status. We are subject to Ofsted scrutiny. It is not clear to me why we would need to follow the full national curriculum. What advantage does that give? When we have to provide all the nationally-recognised qualifications—GCSEs, A-levels, SATs—and we are subject to external regulation by Ofsted, why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 72.]

Luke Sparkes, from the also very successful Dixons Academies Trust, argued that:

“we…need the ability to enact the curriculum in a responsive and flexible way at a local level. I can see the desire to get that consistency, but there needs to be a consistency without stifling innovation.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 79.]

Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Primary Headteachers’ Association told us:

“Anything that says, ‘Well, we are going to go slightly more with a one-size-fits-all model’—bearing in mind, too, that we do not know what that looks like, because this national curriculum has not even been written yet—is a worry. That is what I mean. If we suddenly all have to comply with something that is more uniform and have to check—‘Oh no, we cannot do that’, ‘Yes, we can do that’, ‘No, we can’t do that’, ‘Yes, we can do that’—it will impede our ability to be agile”. ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 83.]

The Minister talked about Chesterton’s fence and gave us some lessons in Conservative history and philosophy, but I point her to the same argument: this is an example of Chesterton’s fence. These freedoms and flexibilities are there for a reason. They are there to defend us against the inflexibility of not being able to do what Sir Dan Moynihan needs to do to turn around failing schools. It is no good us saying, “Here is the perfect curriculum. Let’s go and study this incredibly advanced subject” if the kids cannot read or add up. This is a very powerful point that school leaders are making to us, one which I hope Ministers will take on board.

Since the Minister referred to a bit of Conversative history and Ken Baker’s creation of the national curriculum in the 1980s, she will of course be aware that there was a huge debate about it and a lot of concern, particularly from Mrs Thatcher, about what many described as the “nationalised curriculum”. There was concern that it would get out of hand, become too prescriptive, too bureaucratic and too burdensome. That debate will always be there, and the safety valve we have at the moment is that never since its instigation have all schools had to follow the national curriculum. Even though academies did not exist then, city technology colleges did and they did not have the follow the national curriculum. This is the first time in our whole history that every single school will have to follow it.

In relation to previous clauses, I have spoken about getting away from the dead hand of compliance culture and moving toward an achievement and innovation culture—a culture of freedom—in our schools. Pupils at Michaela Community School made the greatest progress in the whole country three years in a row—an incredible achievement—and they did that by having an incredibly distinctive and knowledge-intensive curriculum that was completely their own. Its head, Katharine Birbalsingh, has argued in an open letter to the Secretary of State:

“Clearly there needs to be a broad academic core for all children. But a rigid national curriculum that dictates adherence to a robotic, turgid and monotonous programme of learning that prevents headteachers from giving their children a bespoke offer tailored to the needs of their pupils, is quite frankly, horrifying. Anyone in teaching who has an entrepreneurial spirit, who enjoys thinking creatively about how best to address the needs of their pupils, will be driven out of the profession. Not to mention how standards will drop! High standards depend in part on the dynamism of teachers. Why would you want to kill our creativity?

Then there is the cost. Your curriculum changes will cost schools time and money. Do you have any idea of the work required from teachers and school leaders to change their curriculum? You will force heads to divert precious resources from helping struggling families to fulfil a bureaucratic whim coming from Whitehall. Why are you changing things? What is the problem you are trying to solve?”

That is a good question; perhaps the Minister can tell us the answer.

Nor is it just school leaders who are raising concerns about this clause. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum was “of particular concern” to her. Our three new clauses reflect what school leaders have told us. We think the clause is fundamentally a bad idea, but we are trying to find a compromise.

New clause 53 responds to Sir Dan Moynihan’s point that freedom to vary from the national curriculum can be really important in turnaround situations: we cannot succeed in other things if children are unable first to read and write. New clause 54 allows freedom where schools are delivering a broad and balanced curriculum. That worries Ministers, although we heard from the head of Ofsted the other day that schools are delivering a broad and balanced curriculum, so once again it is not clear what problem Ministers are trying to solve. We do not learn the answer from the impact assessment either. If this is just about ensuring that all schools have the same freedoms, new clause 54 would give local authority schools the same freedoms as academies, but that is not what the Government are proposing.

I hope the Minister will tell us at some point what problem she is trying to solve. Where is the evidence of abuse? There is none in the impact assessment, and Ministers have not produced any at any point so far in the process. The Government’s impact assessment says that schools

“may need to hire additional or specialist teachers for any subjects not currently delivered or underrepresented in existing curricula”,

that they may need to make adjustments in their facilities, resources and materials to meet the national curriculum standards, and that they may need “additional or specialised training” to deliver the new national curriculum. It says:

“some academies may be particularly affected if their current curriculum differs significantly from the new national curriculum”.

Unfortunately, the impact assessment does not put any numbers on the impact. Will the Minister commit clearly and unambiguously to meet the costs, including for facilities, for any schools that have to incur costs as a result of this measure?

The Minister talked about Jim Callaghan’s famous phrase, his reference to a “secret garden”. We will come on to that on a later new clause, when we will advance the case against secret lessons in relationships, health and sex education. I hope the Minister will be as good as her word; I hope she is against the secret garden in that domain. On these new clauses, we hope the Minister will listen to the voices of school leaders, her own colleagues and people who are concerned about clause 41, and tell us what the problem is that the Government are trying to solve. The Government clearly like the idea of everything being the same—they like imposing the same thing on every school in the country—but what is the problem? Where is the evidence that this needs to happen? Why are Ministers not listening to serious school leaders who have turned around a lot of schools, who say that they need this freedom to turn around schools that are currently failing kids? Why do Ministers think they know better than school leaders who have already succeeded in turning around failing schools?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Where to start? I guess I should start by responding to the fundamental question that I think hon. Members are asking: what problem are we trying to solve? Fundamentally, Opposition Members—I do not refer to all of them—do not seem to have a very realistic perspective on the challenges that are very present in the education system. They cite singular examples of schools that are doing a fantastic job and that absolutely should be celebrated, but that is not reflective of the entire system.

Through this Bill and the other reforms we are looking to introduce—I think Opposition Members fundamentally agree with them, but do not wish to say so—we are trying to create a core offer for every child in this country. No matter what type of school they go to, what their background is and where they come from, children will be guaranteed a core, quality educational offer, with qualified teachers and a national curriculum core framework that gives them the basis, yes, of knowledge, but also skills and development as an individual that set them up for life.

It is an absolute myth that maintained schools are unable to innovate while following the national curriculum. The reformed national curriculum will support innovation and professionalism in teachers, and maintain the flexibility that we know is really important if schools are to meet the needs of their children. It is absolutely right that schools can, for example, choose to prioritise English and maths, if that is what their children need. However, that should not be at the expense of curriculum breadth and opportunity for young people who also need extra support.

We want every child in every state school to have a broad range of subjects and to have the opportunity to study a common core of knowledge that has been determined by experts and agreed by Parliament. I absolutely agree that it should be led by experts, which is why we have an independent panel of experts advising on the curriculum and assessment review. I absolutely recognise the strong track record of, for example, Michaela and the good outcomes it delivers for its students. I understand that, as hon. Members have rightly acknowledged, the vast majority of schools do follow the national curriculum.

It is our intention to create a common core framework right across our school system, regardless of the structure of the school. That is all we are trying to achieve with this fairly straightforward measure. To be honest, the attitude that is sometimes displayed and the fears that are being mongered just seem a little hysterical. Every child should have a high-quality education, which is all that we seek to ensure with the measures in the Bill.

[Neil O'Brien]

I read out the very real concerns of serious educational leaders with strong track records. The Minister says that they are hysterical.

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, I did not.

[Neil O'Brien]

Well, she said the concerns are hysterical. They are not my concerns; they are concerns that have been put to this Committee by incredibly respected school leaders. The Minister says that only a few of them are using these freedoms. Well, if it is only a few, why should they not have the freedom to do what they know works? Why do Ministers think they know better? Let me just ask two specific questions. Will UTCs have to follow the curriculum as well, and will all the costs that fall on schools from this measure be met? I ask those questions now, because Ministers may want to get the answers from the Box.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Let me be clear: I have not referred to any academy leaders or professionals in our education system as expressing views that are hysterical. I have referred to hon. Members, and I was very clear about that in my comments. I have seen far too much of that in this Committee—putting words into Members’ mouths. It is not respectful to the people we are here to represent and serve, who are working extremely hard in our school system and contributing constructively to this debate. We are open to feedback, which is why we have two consultations out on a number of the measures being considered as part of our reforms. We absolutely welcome feedback; we welcome challenge. Actually, the level of challenge reflects how important this is to the people who contribute to the discussion and debate. The hysteria I was talking about referred to hon. Members and their characterisation of some of the changes.

For the sake of a reality check, let me just say that in 2022—Members should note these statistics—of primary schools in multi-academy trusts, 64% were good and 15% were outstanding; in single-academy trusts, 67% were good and 27% were outstanding; and in maintained schools, 76% were good and 16% were outstanding. There is no difference for children’s outcomes depending on the school’s status. This is not about academies versus maintained schools or anything like it; it is about making sure that we have a framework that serves every child and that every child has a core offer as part of their education. To treat it like some sort of terrible, terrifying prospect is a mischaracterisation of the reality of both the school system and the changes we are looking to make.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister for the statistics she has presented, which echo the point I was about to ask her about. Would like to challenge—as she just has—the assertion from the Conservative Benches that academies are somehow better performing? Would she agree that there is no clear evidence, as suggested by Professor Stephen Gorard, who absolutely knows what he is talking about, that academies as a whole do better than maintained schools? An ideological commitment to academies, based on a set of cherry-picked examples of individual schools, is unhelpful to the tenor of the debate. We should focus on ensuring that every child in every type of school gets an excellent education.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She took the words out of my mouth earlier when she challenged the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. The national curriculum offer and everything we are presenting as part of our reforms provide a floor, but not a ceiling on ambition, innovation, flexibility and the ability to give an outstanding and exemplary education to the children in this country. We celebrate and value success for our children, in whatever form it comes, whether that is an academy or a local authority-maintained school. Indeed, success comes in all those forms.

All we wish to see, through this fairly straightforward measure, is a knowledge-rich education—in answer to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston—and a curriculum that is cutting-edge and that ensures high and rising standards for every child. That is why we launched the curriculum and assessment review to take the advice of experts on bringing the curriculum up to date. It is why we want to see the national curriculum as the experience that every child should have, and the framework that every child should experience throughout their primary and secondary education, regardless of the type of state school that they attend. And it is why we will be asking Members to support clause stand part.

Before the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asks, I will respond to his question on UTCs because—

[Neil O'Brien]

And on whether all the costs will be met.

[Catherine McKinnell]

We recognise the valuable contribution of UTCs in providing a distinctive technical education curriculum. However, we want to ensure that all children have access to a quality core curriculum. The curriculum and assessment review is helping us to make sure we have a broad, enriching curriculum from which every child can benefit. Once it is complete, we will work with UTCs to provide any support they need to implement the changes, because we recognise their particular offer.

[Munira Wilson]

It was me who asked about UTCs. In her answer, is the Minister suggesting that UTCs will be required to follow the full national curriculum, even if they have a very specific technical specialism?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Member for East Hampshire made a very interesting speech. As far as I could tell, it was not all entirely relevant to the clause, but it was an interesting description of a national curriculum and its purpose and core. Fundamentally, we want every child to have that basic core of rich knowledge and experience. Even if their school has a technical or other specialism, we still want them to have that curriculum. It is incumbent on us as a Government to create a curriculum and assessment framework that can accommodate variations, flexibility and innovation within the system. We will work with UTCs to ensure that the curriculum can be applied in their context.

This brings me to the question from the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about costs. As we plan the implementation of the curriculum, we will work with trusts and schools to consider what support they might need to implement the changes. That is my response to his question.

[Tom Hayes]

I am just reflecting on this debate, and I wonder whether the Minister would agree with me on three points. First, we do not have evidence that academies have improved outcomes, and where we do, it is thin and contested. Secondly, we do not really have evidence that academics are using their autonomy; in fact, the only DFE report I could find on this dates back to 2014. Thirdly, where there may be evidence that academics are performing well, it is not necessarily the case that deviation from the national curriculum is the major contributor to that success. Is not the problem that we do not have a significant body of evidence from the last 14 years? The Conservative spokespeople on the Committee could have commissioned one from the Department for Education to back up their arguments.

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes some interesting and valuable points.

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Could I just respond to my hon. Friend’s point? I think the fundamental point he is making is that an obsession with the structure of a school is a distraction from the importance of ensuring the quality and outcomes experienced by the children within it. That is why this Government are focused on ensuring that every school has the fundamentals to provide that opportunity for children, whether that is having qualified teachers in the classroom or a curriculum and assessment framework that sets every child up to thrive. We are focused on ensuring that teachers have a fair pay framework, which we will get on to, and that there is consistency across the board, so that every school in every local community can co-operate—we will also get on to that—to ensure that children in that area, regardless of their background and needs, have the opportunity to thrive and achieve as part of their education.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 42

Academy schools: educational provision for improving behaviour

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Clause 42 will ensure that all mainstream and special state schools are subject to the same regulatory requirements and safeguards when directing pupils off site to improve their behaviour, creating a baseline between academies and maintained schools. Academy schools can already arrange off-site placements through their general powers, and in doing so they already follow the same guidance as maintained schools. However, technically there is inconsistency in the legal framework. Providing academies with the same explicit statutory power and equivalent limits and controls will strengthen the wider efforts to consistently safeguard all pupils and promote educational outcomes. It will also support consistency, scrutiny and transparency against misconduct or malpractice.

In using the power, academies will be required to follow the same statutory requirements as maintained schools, as set out in existing guidance. These include notifying the local authority where a pupil has an education, health and care plan; setting out the objectives of the off-site placement and keeping it under review; and keeping parents fully informed to meet pupils’ needs. I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43

Academies: power to secure performance of proprietor’s duties etc

[Neil O’Brien]

I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 43, page 102, leave out lines 35 and 36.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

This is a very centralising Bill. We have already talked about what PE kit people should be wearing at school; we have talked about whether schools will now have to apply to the Secretary of State to put up a bike rack. [Laughter.] Ministers laugh, but it is serious. They agreed to a clause just this morning that has that effect.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Nonsense.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is not nonsense. It is your legislation. Sorry, let me correct the record: it is nonsense. This is nonsense legislation that we are being asked to pass.

Now we come on to something really serious that school leaders are warning us about, which is another completely out-of-control piece of centralisation. As drafted, the Bill will create the power for the Secretary of State to direct academy schools to do pretty much anything. Leora Cruddas, of the Confederation of School Trusts, has suggested a way to bring the currently unlimited clause 43 power under some limits:

“We do have concerns about the power to direct. We think it is too wide at the moment. We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we do not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits. Those limits should be around statutory duties on academy trusts, statutory guidance, the provisions in the funding agreement and charity law.”

That is precisely what Opposition amendments 88 and 89 would do. We are not against Ministers having a new power to intervene to get schools to fulfil their duties, but that is different; it is narrower than the current drafting. It may just be that when officials have gone away and tried to turn Ministers’ intentions into legislation, they have gone too far.

David Thomas, a successful headteacher, has made the same point:

“If the purpose is, as it says in the explanatory notes, to issue a direction to academy trusts to comply with their duty, that feels like a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to do. The Bill, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the ability to ‘give the proprietor such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate’. I do not think it is appropriate for a Secretary of State to give an operational action plan to a school, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for a Secretary of State to tell a school that it needs to follow its duty. I think there is just a mismatch between the stated intention and the drafting, and I would correct that mismatch.”

I am not surprised that school leaders are concerned. The Government’s own policy summary notes make it clear that they intend to use the power to reach into schools and intervene on pretty much anything that the Department wants. They give the following example:

“The academy trust has failed to deal with a parental complaint and has not followed its complaints process. Therefore, the issue may be escalated to the Department to consider. In such cases, the Secretary of State could issue a compliance direction to ensure the trust addresses the complaint appropriately”.

It is crystal clear that the Government are taking a power to direct any academy school, without limit, on any issue they see fit. That is such a big move away from the whole idea of the academies programme—the idea of independent state-funded schools.

There are two ways of fixing the problem. Amendments 78 and 79 would simply delete the bit that is excessive, proposed new section 497C(1)(b); amendment 77 would require a statement to be made when the powers are used. Alternatively, amendments 88 and 89—this is, broadly speaking, the suggestion made by the Confederation of School Trusts—would be more incremental reforms. They would retain the text about direction but, in two relevant places, would limit it to

“compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”

The impact assessment for the Bill says that if schools do not comply with the new orders from the Secretary of State, the trustees may be found to be in contempt of court. This charge may come with punishments including fines. It is also possible that, in very extreme cases, individuals found in contempt of court could face a custodial sentence. Helpfully, the assessment says that that should be very rare, but what a long way we have travelled from the whole idea of academies as independent state schools!

That has been the theme as we have gone through the Bill: again and again, we are moving away from a culture of entrepreneurialism, can-do spirit and freedom—going out there and solving problems and making the magic happen for kids—and towards a compliance culture that is all about dealing with what the Secretary of State wants and clicking our heels when they say jump. Since 1988, we have been on a cross-party journey away from micromanagement and towards greater autonomy for schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 48% of schools are local authority-maintained schools? He seems to be denigrating their entire modus operandi in his characterisation of the way non-academies work. They are working hard and are delivering fantastic outcomes for children. We do not denigrate academies; I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so to maintained schools.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is always a bad sign when someone has to misrepresent completely what their opponent is trying to say. Allow me to address that point directly by, once again, reading what Leora Cruddas of the Confederation of School Trusts told the Committee:

“We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we do not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits.” ––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 81, Q169.]

That is what our amendments seek to do.

To take the temperature out of the discussion, let me say that I do not have a problem with the Government having a new power of intervention to cut across their funding agreements with academies—although that is a big step, by the way. My problem is with the completely unlimited nature of the power. I am thinking about the effect of getting away from micromanagement over time. The sixth-form college I went to had become brilliant because it had managed to use the freedoms in the 1992 reforms to take a huge step away from micromanagement, but some of the older teachers there still remembered the days when they had to ring up the town hall if they wanted the heating turned up. Imagine that absurd degree of micromanagement. Terrifyingly, some schools in Scotland are still experiencing that insane degree of micromanagement; teachers there are currently on strike because their concerns about discipline are not being taken seriously, so we can see that freedom has worked in England.

I do not think that this was the intention of the Ministers, but the drafting of the clause is far too sweeping. It gives an unlimited power. I see no reason why the Ministers should not accept the suggestion from the Confederation of School Trusts, which our amendments seek to implement, that we limit that power in certain reasonable ways. It is fine for Ministers to be able to intervene more, but we need some limits. I am sure that the current Secretary of State wants only good things, but a bad future Secretary of State should not be able to do just anything they want.

The Ministers started from a reasonable point of view, but it has gone too far. I hope that they will work with the CST to turn the unlimited power into a limited one. Perhaps they will even accept our amendments, which would do exactly that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will turn first to amendment 77, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. We are committed to maintaining transparency in our decisions to intervene in academies and trusts. We already publish notices to improve and termination warning notices when they are issued to trusts. When a direction is issued, the Secretary of State will publish the direction unless there are good reasons not to do so. The direction will make clear the duty or power in relation to which it is made; it will also clearly state what the trust has to do to rectify the issue. We therefore do not consider it necessary to make a statement to the House of Commons about every direction. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Members not to press amendment 77.

Amendment 78 seeks to limit the legal duty limb of the direction-making power to when the Secretary of State considers that there has been a breach of a legal duty by a trust. As the regulator of academies, the Secretary of State must be able to ensure that trusts are complying with their legal duties; this includes performing those legal duties properly and not bending the rules. That is why it is important that the Secretary of State can intervene when trusts are performing their legal duties in an unreasonable way, just as we can issue a direction to governing bodies of maintained schools under existing powers when there is an unreasonable performance of a duty. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw amendment 78.

Amendment 79 seeks to limit the scope of the power to secure proper performance of academy trusts to breaches of their legal duties only. It also suggests that the Secretary of State may not be able to issue a direction, but should instead rely on the termination powers in funding agreements to enforce compliance with the duty. The legal duties and powers to maintain schools and academies originate from different sources. The duties and powers for maintained schools are contained primarily in legislation; in contrast, some academy duties and powers are sourced in legislation, but others are sourced in contract. This measure therefore needs to be drafted broadly to encompass a comparable range of powers and duties.

The purpose of the direction-making power is to give the Secretary of State a way of enforcing breaches of legal obligations where threatening to terminate a funding agreement and move an academy to another trust is not proportionate. The amendment would totally undermine that purpose and would leave us with essentially the same powers that we have now. I therefore respectfully ask hon. Members not to press amendment 79.

Amendments 88 and 89 seek to limit the scope of the Secretary of State’s power to issue directions. The Secretary of State must be able to hold trusts and their proprietors to account for fulfilling their duties and powers. Limiting the scope of compliance, as is proposed, would undermine that ability and would hinder effective oversight.

As I have said, the legal framework for academies is distinct from the framework for local authority-maintained schools. The duties and powers applicable to academies are not solely enshrined in legislation; they are also embedded in their funding agreements and articles of association. A power with a more broadly drafted scope is necessary to encompass a comparable range of powers and duties. The broader scope will ensure that the Secretary of State can address the unreasonable actions of academy proprietors comprehensively and effectively, without the need to terminate a trust’s funding agreement. Narrowing the scope of directions, as amendments 88 and 89 would, risks hindering the Secretary of State’s ability to enforce proprietors’ compliance with their duties and to exercise their powers as they should.

It is crucial that we maintain a robust and flexible approach to oversight, ensuring that all academies adhere to the highest standards of governance and accountability. Furthermore, it is important to note that any directions issued by the Secretary of State will be made in line with common-law principles of reasonableness and fairness. This will ensure that the directions are fair, balanced and appropriate to the circumstances, providing a safeguard against any potential misuse of power. For those reasons, I respectfully ask hon. Members not to press amendments 88 and 89.

I turn to clause 43. The majority of trusts are doing an excellent job, providing good-quality education to their children and fulfilling their legal obligations while doing so. However, when things go wrong and trusts are not fulfilling their obligations or are stretching the rules unreasonably, it can be hard for Government to intervene. The only intervention that we can currently take is threatening to remove academies from the trust, and that would disrupt the education of children. That is the only option, even when non-compliance is not even connected to education outcomes.

Clause 43 will allow the Secretary of State to issue a direction to a trust when things go wrong, identifying what needs to be done to remedy it. That will provide the trust with clarity about its responsibilities. In almost all cases, before deciding to issue a direction, the Secretary of State will write to the trust to let it know that she is minded to direct it to take action, providing an opportunity for it to make representations. When the trust does not comply with that direction, instead of disrupting the education of pupils for quite discrete matters we will seek an enforcement through a court order. That means that the Secretary of State can ensure that trusts are doing what they should be doing, without unnecessary disruption to pupils.

I shall now respond to some of the questions raised. This is not about micromanaging academies. Existing intervention powers, like termination warning notices, simply are not always suitable for isolated breaches of legal duties or unreasonable behaviour—they are like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. That is no way to run a system where what is often required is firm but much less drastic action. Terminating funding agreements can be incredibly disruptive for pupils, parents, staff and communities. The new measure offers a much more flexible, direct and commensurate way to ensure compliance. It will minimise disruption and maintain stability for trusts and their pupils.

With regard to the shadow Minister’s comments about the Confederation of Schools Trusts’ suggestions, I should say that I have absolute admiration for the work that the CST does and full respect for its views on these matters. However, the measure is drafted with the scope to cover a broad range of ways in which an academy trust might breach a legal duty, or exercise a power unreasonably, in a way that warrants intervention. By covering all duties and powers applicable to academy trusts, our drafting achieves that aim and makes the direction-making power as effective an intervention measure as possible.

We will issue guidance in due course detailing the circumstances in which we will issue a direction. We do not think it is necessary to limit the scope of the power to duties and powers in legislation, funding agreements and articles of association, as that would still result in a broad power.

On the question of appeals, we will issue a “minded to” letter first, as is already the case, so that the trust can respond to concerns. But when a trust is fulfilling a legal duty or exercising a legal power in an unreasonable way, the measure gives the Secretary of State the power to issue a direction to the trust, which will make it clear what is required from the trust. In cases of unreasonableness, we will issue a direction only when the behaviour of the trust is such that no reasonable trust could have acted in such a way, not simply when the Secretary of State disagrees with the action of the trust.

If a trust believes that the Secretary State has issued a direction mistakenly or unreasonably, the direction may be challenged by way of judicial review. Without this proposed direction-making power, the Secretary of State’s ability to take action in cases of unacceptable behaviour from trusts—for example, issues in relation to off-rolling—will be limited.

I turn to the comments of the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. As he will be aware, we are already regularly engaging with trusts as part of existing intervention processes. The amount of extra work for the Department is certainly a factor to consider, but it is difficult to quantify as it will vary on a case-by-case basis. Considering existing parallel powers for maintained schools has not led to an increase in work for the Department. Indeed, being able to take a more measured and proportionate approach, rather than a “sledgehammer to crack a nut” one, will hopefully be a more proportionate and measured response to any unreasonable behaviour by academy trusts.

[Damian Hinds]

For clarification, I meant that if a trust or a school had not followed its own complaints procedure and the DFE needed to intervene, that would result in an increase in the volume of parental complaints. The DFE does handle parental complaints, of course. I think that there would be an increase in the volume. My question was about the specific resourcing implications of that, particularly in a changed world with social media: when people get wind of these things, complaints could grow somewhat.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Gentleman asks about a very specific example. I am happy to take it away. The issue of complaints is generally important. The Department is looking at where accountability and responsibility lies and how to make clear for parents where they can best direct their concerns. It is an important issue and one we are taking away.

In terms of the implementation of this power, I cannot see a significant impact, given that the provision is intended to create a much more reasonable approach when it comes to academies that are not fulfilling their legal duties. Currently the only options available are significant and disproportionate in many cases, and action might be required to deal with the case of a trust not complying with its legal obligations.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister mentions a trust that is not complying with its legal duties; I do not think we would have a problem with addressing that, but that is not what is drafted here. As the provision is drafted, the Secretary of State can intervene whenever he or she thinks, in their own eye, that the school is behaving unreasonably. The only appeal the school will have is judicial review. The Minister is saying a lot of sensible stuff, but that is just too much, and I am keen to press amendment 88.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I have already responded to that point, both in my substantive comments and subsequent responses. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.

[Neil O’Brien]

For all the reasons we have just rehearsed, I am keen to push amendment 88. Ministers may well vote against it today, but I hope that later on in the process they will listen to what school leaders are saying. There is a group of amendments, but I intend to push only amendment 88 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 78.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 88, clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 39 and insert

“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”—(Neil O’Brien.)

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.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

If the Government are going to claim that they are effectively doing twice as much, we need at least to see the numbers so that we can compare them to what happened under the old regime. I am sure that the Minister would agree that that is a reasonable thing to ask for and that she will be able to provide us with statistics on how many schools will go through structural intervention over the next three years and how many will go through the targeted RISE intervention.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I should be predicting which schools go into special measures and which have an Ofsted outcome that requires significant improvement?

[Neil O’Brien]

I am afraid that the Minister is the one making the prediction. It is her consultation document that says that the Government expect that twice as many schools will go through some combination of either RISE or structural intervention. The Government must know, to be able to make the claim—

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way and I will clarify?

[Neil O’Brien]

Just a second. To make the claim that Ministers want to make for all kinds of reasons, they have to know. It is not me who is making the prediction, but them. I just want them to give us the numbers behind it.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is conflating the identification of stuck schools that under his Government remained consistently underperforming—about 600 schools, with 312,000 children. The RISE teams will immediately focus on those as the immediate priority for improving outcomes.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am trying to get the Minister to de-conflate her own statistics. The Government want to present the statistic in a deliberately conflated way and I am trying to get it de-conflated. This is the Government’s statistic; I am not offering it. I would like to have some sense from them of how many schools—they must have the figure to make the claim—are going to go through structural interventions so that we can compare the future regime to the previous regime. The Ministers are the ones making the claim that this will intervene on more schools; I am not claiming that. I think it is reasonable to ask for the numbers behind the Government’s own claims, which they did not have to make.

There is an irony behind all this. Ministers have said that they worry about having different types of schools and they want things in the system to be generally more consistent. Currently, the school system is a sort of halfway house: about 80% of secondary schools are now academies, but fewer than half of primaries are—so just over half of state schools are now academies; most academies are in a trust and so on.

In the absence of this Bill we were gradually moving over time, in an organic way, to get to a consistent system based on academies and trusts, which would then at some point operate on the same framework. But the Bill effectively freezes that halfway: it is ending the academisation order and enabling local authorities to open more new schools again. I have never been quite clear about why Ministers want a situation where they do not end up with an organic move to a single system but remain with the distinction between academies and local authority maintained schools, particularly given the drive for consistency elsewhere in the Bill.

In the past, there have been people in the Government who have held anti-academies views, or at least been prepared to bandwagon with anti-academies campaigners on the left. When running for leadership of the Labour party, the Prime Minister said:

“The academisation of our schools is centralising at its core and it has fundamentally disempowered parents, pupils and communities.”

That was not long ago; there he was, on the bandwagon with the anti-academies people.

Likewise, the Deputy Prime Minister said she wanted to stop academy conversion and

“scrap the inefficient free school programme”.

We talked about the evidence that those programmes worked when Labour Members asked for it. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the free schools programme is inefficient, but the average Progress 8 score of a free school is 0.25. That is a fantastic score, getting a quarter of a grade better across all subjects, which is beating the national average. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister thought was so inefficient, but the opposite is the truth. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are not the only ones: the Culture Secretary spoke at an anti-academies conference. The Energy Secretary said that free schools were the last thing we need—but actually, for many kids they are the first. When Ministers in this Government say that they just want more options, and that they are still prepared to fight all the usual suspects to put failing schools under new management—even where left-wing local campaigns are against it—we start from a bit of a sceptical position, because of the relatively recent comments made by senior Ministers.

We do not have to imagine the future. The other day, we saw a choice: we saw a straw in the wind. Glebefields primary school in Tipton was issued with an academy order after being rated less than good twice. The DFE previously told Glebefields that the Education Secretary did not believe the case met the criteria to revoke academisation, despite the change of policy before us. The school threatened legal action and the Secretary of State changed her mind. I worry that there will be many such cases, as well as court cases, and that too many children will find themselves in schools that are failing them, and in need of new management that they will not get.

Ultimately, our amendments seek to limit the damage of this clause, but fundamentally we think that it is a mistake. We worry that, in a few years’ time, Ministers will realise what some of their Back-Bench colleagues already realise: why this clause is a big mistake.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

The hon. Lady posed a question and answered it herself, so I shall move on.

My amendment 95 is perhaps made redundant by yesterday’s announcements, but amendment 96 talks about parliamentary oversight. That comes back to the fundamental point that I made in the Chamber yesterday, which is that we will end up passing the Bill before we see the outcome of the consultations from Ofsted and the Government on school improvement. I therefore humbly ask Ministers to at least allow Parliament to have sight of what will replace the power that is being amended, our support for which is of long standing.

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

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

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

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

[Damian Hinds]

I have a genuine question, as they say on Twitter. Quite a lot of teachers and school leaders have asked me, what is the difference between people joining a RISE team and national leaders in education?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Genuine delay of response, on the basis that I will come to that in my comments, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest.

Amendment 82—tabled jointly in the names of the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich—means that where the Secretary of State decides to issue an academy order to a school, the decision cannot be challenged by judicial review. The amendment looks to address the concerns that have been raised that repealing the duty to issue academy orders will lead to delays in school conversions and improvement, due to legal challenges against the Secretary of State’s decision.

I do not accept the challenge that repealing the duty to issue academy orders will lead to unacceptably high numbers of legal challenges. As part of our future intervention process, we will set out a robust and lawful policy which will set out the circumstances in which we will issue an academy order to a school in a category of concern, and that will help ensure that all decisions taken to intervene are in the best interest of the individual school and its circumstances. However, there should be the possibility, and ability, for those impacted by decisions to issue an academy order to challenge that decision where it might have got it wrong. I therefore respectfully ask that the Members withdraw that amendment.

I now turn to amendments 95 and 96, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Amendment 95 seeks to require the Secretary of State to invite expressions of interest from potential sponsor trusts prior to issuing an academy order to a failing school. It then requires the Secretary of State to assess the track record of potential sponsors identified as regards school improvement. Amendment 96 would require the Secretary of State to lay a report before Parliament, setting out the different mechanisms that can be used to secure school improvement, and guidance on the appropriate usage of those mechanisms, before measures can take effect. The Department already has an established practice on publishing clear policy and guidance on the methods used to support and intervene in schools. In particular, the support and intervention in school guidance makes clear the various intervention powers that may be used when a school is underperforming and the circumstances in which they may be used. In most cases, failing maintained schools subsequently converted to academies have shown improvements. The last published data shows that since 2010, 68% of previously maintained schools, now academies, improved to a “good” or “outstanding” in their latest Ofsted inspection. Conversely, that does show that 32% did not.

Once it is decided that an academy order should be issued, the Department already has established processes in place to identify the best sponsor for each failing school. Using the high-quality trust framework, the Department identifies trusts with the expertise and track record in delivering high-quality and inclusive education and the capacity to rapidly transform the performance of the school. The Department will consider the individual school characteristics and the school’s improvement needs in order to match the school with the right trust. We will continue to ensure that we identify the best possible sponsor match for failing schools that receive academy orders to maximise the potential for school improvement. The Department already has these well-established practices, so I do not believe the amendments are necessary to achieve the outcome that they seek. I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press them to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

It was the Prime Minister’s words, not mine.

[Catherine McKinnell]

We greatly value the role of trusts in the school system. Indeed, we recognise the improvements they have brought, particularly for disadvantaged children. We recognise the excellence and innovation seen right across our schools and trusts. As I said earlier, we also recognise that a lot of the capacity to drive improvement across the system exists within those academy trusts, and we will harness that.

Without single headline grades, Ofsted will continue to identify those schools that require significant improvement or are in special measures and it will be able to make judgments to inform the level of support that should be given. If a school in special measures does not have the leadership capacity to improve, the proposal subject to consultation is that it should be immediately moved towards academisation. Where a school does have the leadership capacity to improve, for the next year, while we are building up the capacity of the RISE teams—as I said, 20 began work yesterday, but we recognise we are not up to full capacity yet—it will be issued with an academy order. However, once we have the RISE teams to go in and support the leadership team to drive improvements within those schools, we will put in that support, rather than going straight to an academy order.

[Tom Hayes]

We have heard various things from the Conservative spokespeople, including from a sedentary position. I just heard the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston say something about the Prime Minister. I want to put on the record what the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister’s questions recently:

“Parents and teachers know that we introduced academies. Parents and teachers know that we are driven by standards. We are committed to standards—they are part of the future—and we will continue to focus on them.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 1000.]

It is really important that words are not being put in the mouths of Members, particularly when those Members are not in this room.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, and I agree; there has been far too much of that in this Committee.

[Neil O’Brien]

I literally just read out the Prime Minister’s own words. They are not my words. If he did not want to say them, he did not have to say them. I want to press the Minister, because I can sense that she is starting to wind up. She is talking about how many schools will go through structural intervention—in other words, academisation. The Government have put out a statistic saying that there will be twice as many schools going through RISE and academisation combined over the next three years as there were over the last two years. The Government clearly have a statistic for how many schools they expect to go through academisation, and I am keen that the Minister tell the House what that number is. How many schools do they expect to go through academisation in the next three years? They obviously know.

[Catherine McKinnell]

To be clear, we have identified the 600 schools that require RISE intervention, and that will be mandated—

[Neil O’Brien]

How many will go through academisation?

[Catherine McKinnell]

If I could just finish, that will be mandated intervention for schools that have been consistently underperforming. They are schools that are not part of the previous Government’s procedure for mandating intervention within schools. They are schools that have been sitting just above the mandated intervention procedures but have been consistently underperforming. This is one of the big failures of the previous Government. We have spent a lot of time in the last few days recognising the great successes of many educational reforms over the years, but it is a crying shame that so many schools are still struggling and have not had the support they need to improve over the years.

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

No. The idea that a one-trick-pony approach to improving schools will get the required outcome is simply not borne out by the facts.

I will give a piece of data that might help to illustrate my point. This is in no way a reflection of academies—we absolutely support academies, and we cannot wait to see RISE working with academies to drive great practice and improvements across the system. However, 42% of schools that were placed in special measures or judged as requiring significant improvement in 2023-24 by Ofsted were academies. The idea that simply academising, academising, academising will get the outcomes we need for children is a narrow-minded, inflexible approach that has let far too many children down. We are not willing to put up with that.

[Neil O’Brien]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will get on to answering the hon. Gentleman’s question, if he would like me to. He can ask it again or ask another one.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am keen to get a piece of information that the Government have not properly put into the public domain. They clearly know how many schools they expect to go through academisation in the next three years. What is the number? That is all I am looking for.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will need to write to the hon. Gentleman to answer that specific question, as I think it is more complex than he identifies. There are obviously schools that we know are underperforming, and that is where we want to target our resources. Those in special measures and those that require significant improvement will undergo academy conversion over the next 12 months. We probably have the number for that, but ongoing Ofsted inspections will identify new schools that will fall into that category, and they will need to be academised. We cannot predict that, and it would not be fair for us to do so.

We have roughly 312,000 children at schools that we have already identified as struggling schools that are not getting any support or intervention. We are directing targeted, mandated RISE support to them. Clearly, future schools will unfortunately fall into those categories as more Ofsted inspections are undertaken over the next year. I therefore do not have the exact figure as to how many will fall into whichever category.

We obviously hope that schools will benefit from the universal RISE service that we will bring forward to support all schools to improve, regardless of their process. That, however, is part of the consultation; we will look to roll it out in due course.

To be clear on the number of RISE advisers, we recognise that 20 seems like a small number, but they will be the facilitators of a much larger army of school improvement expertise that we know already exists in the system. That will be put together with schools that require support. By April, we will have 50 advisers as we are undertaking a recruitment process to bring in the best of the best for school improvement support. They will not deliver the school improvement but will ensure that school improvement is made available and matched up with schools that need it.

As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire will know, the national leaders of education, who are school improvers, were deployed for a basic 10 days. That was obviously valuable, but RISE will draw on a much broader range of institutional capacity, and it will bring in more than one provider. There will be more help and expertise, and there will be more time and more money. We are not going to waste any time. We are investing in making sure that children do not spend one more day in a school that is not giving them the outcomes they deserve. I hope the Committee will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am keen to press the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

It is good to follow the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. A lot of this argument has just been about pay, but we are actually considering schoolteachers’ pay and conditions. We need to take into account all elements of schoolteachers’ pay and conditions. The hon. Member spoke about executive pay of CEOs. There is an academy trust—United Learning trust—where many staff cease to get sick pay above statutory levels after six weeks. That does not strike me as likely to attract and retain high-quality staff. People may fall ill through no fault of their own, and this is not the right approach to take when we have a recruitment and retention crisis.

The schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document allows for recruitment and retention points, SEN points and teaching and learning responsibility points to be awarded. It also allows for teachers working in schools to rise up without an incremental scale, unlike me when I entered teaching and took an annual increment to rise up the scale. We can allow for teachers to be paid at a high level, should there be a need and desire for that. That includes the upper pay scale. Members who were not in the profession may not know that the previous Government introduced that with five elements, but those were quickly reduced to three to keep good and experienced teachers in the classroom.

On the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions element, with regard to flexibility it covers 1,265 hours. That can be negotiated in an academy or maintained school according to what works best for individual teachers or the school. I have an example from my city. Several years ago, through the narrowing of the curriculum, GCSE dance was removed from it. The school worked with the dance teacher, who still did her 1,265 hours, but moved her timing, because she did it as an after-school element. There is still the 1,265 element and flexibility. However, the provisions will mean that wherever people teach, in whatever organisation, if they are in a school that is funded by taxpayers—funded by the Government—they will have national standards for their pay and their terms and conditions.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will speak about amendment 47, new clause 7, Government amendment 93, new clause 57, new schedule 1 and clause 26.

On amendment 47, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Twickenham for her considered and constructive views on our teachers’ pay and conditions measures. I hope she will agree that, in tabling our own amendments—of which I will give more details shortly, and respond to her specific question—the Government have demonstrated a commitment to ensuring that schools can innovate and share best practice to recruit and retain the teachers our children need. I absolutely appreciate what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve with the amendment. However, if it will satisfy her, our amendment will do two key things. First, it will create a power for the Secretary of State to require teachers in academy schools and alternative provision academies to be paid at least a minimum level of remuneration. When used with the existing power to set pay for teachers in maintained schools, that will enable the Secretary of State to set a floor on pay for all teachers in all state schools. I think that addresses the key effect that the hon. Lady’s amendment seeks to achieve.

Secondly, our amendment will require academies to have regard to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document and guidance. That makes clear that we will deliver on our commitment to creating a floor with no ceiling on teachers’ pay, and we remain committed to consulting on changes to the school teachers’ pay and conditions document to remove the ceiling and allow all schools to innovate and attract the top teaching talent that they need.

On new clause 7, which the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston tabled, I appreciate his concern. I think we have reached a level of agreement—I do not think there is strong disagreement on the need for clarity for academies or the principle of equivalence between academies and maintained schools on teacher pay and conditions. That is why we have introduced our own amendments to this clause that will, for the first time, allow the Secretary of State to guarantee core pay arrangements for all state school teachers.

Our understanding of new clause 7 is that it seeks to achieve a similar outcome to our Government amendments. However, the Government’s amendment on this matter achieves what the hon. Member’s amendment seeks to achieve and more, with greater clarity and precision. It clarifies those academies and teachers who should be in scope, and importantly, retains the Secretary of State’s power to set a flexible framework for maintained schools, giving them the certainty that they want. It also takes into account the important, considered and constructive views of the teaching profession and other stakeholders, without undermining the independent pay review process that we know schools, teachers and stakeholders value. The Government have listened and acted decisively on this matter, and I urge hon. Members not to press their amendments.

The Government amendments seek to replace clause 45 and detail the Government’s proposed approach to teachers’ pay and conditions. Let me say from the outset that the Government’s objectives on pay and conditions have not changed. As the Secretary of State set out clearly at the Education Committee meeting, we will create a floor with no ceiling by providing a core pay offer for teachers in state schools and enabling innovation to help all schools attract the top teaching talent they need. Those amendments will provide additional clarity about how we will deliver that.

The existing clause 45 will be replaced by new clause 57 and new schedule 1, which introduces a new accompanying schedule to the clause. Amendment 93 deals with the commencement of the new clause and the schedule. The Opposition made a great deal of noise about our plans for teacher pay and conditions, claiming that we wanted to restrict academy freedoms and that our secret intention was actually to cut teachers’ pay. All of it was nonsense. Our rationale for why we need these changes has always been clear. We know that what makes the biggest difference to a young person’s education is high-quality teaching. We greatly value the role that trusts play in the school system, particularly for disadvantaged children—they have transformed schools, and we want them to continue to drive high and rising standards for all pupils. But there are severe shortages of qualified teachers across the country. Our teachers are integral to driving high and rising standards, and having an attractive pay and conditions framework is vital to recruiting and retaining excellent teachers for every classroom.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

It is generous of the Minister to give way. To address the point that I raised in my speech, does she agree that the principle of a floor but no ceiling should apply to school support staff as well as teachers?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes, I was going to come to that point, because it is welcome that the hon. Gentleman focused on school support staff. He is absolutely right that they are integral to any successful school. However, we do not intend to amend the provisions, because we are legislating for the school support staff negotiating body in the Employment Rights Bill, and we are creating a new system for support in 2025. Rather than try to amend the existing one, we are creating a new negotiating body for them. It makes sense that the outcomes from the new body will apply in same way to all state-funded schools in England.

The primary legislation does not commit us to a one-size-fits-all approach, and so there will be flexibilities for local circumstance to be able to flex above minimum agreement. Again, there will also be a floor but no ceiling for school support staff. We will continue to work with the sector, during and after the passage of the Bill, to ensure that the school support staff negotiating body meets the needs of all school types. The shadow Minister’s intervention and focus on school support staff is absolutely welcome.

In response to the specific question of why we need a separate order-making power, we have clarified the objective by tabling an amendment that requires all academy schools and alternative provision academies to pay their teachers at least the minimum level of pay set out in secondary legislation. Subsequent reforms to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document will ensure there is no ceiling on the maximum that maintained schools can pay for their teachers.

The amendment will also require academies to have regard to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, ensuring an established starting point for all state schools while giving confidence that existing or future changes benefiting teachers and pupils can continue. Maintained schools will continue to follow the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, but the Government are committed to making changes to the document following the Bill’s passage, to remove the ceiling and build in flexibility so that all schools can innovate to attract and retain the best talent.

We absolutely want to ensure that the freedoms that academies have enjoyed will continue. Indeed, they will be extended to maintained schools. In terms of examples used, such as the nine-day week—

[Damian Hinds]

Fortnight.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Fortnight. Indeed, as in the interesting example given by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North, it is right that schools are able to find new and innovative ways of ensuring that they retain and attract the teachers who we know will drive the high and rising standards that we want across our schools. I hope I have answered all the questions.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Lady asked me a question.

[Ellie Chowns]

I thank the Minister for giving way. Does she agree with me that there is a case for establishing a national pay framework for academy trust leaders, given the huge and rising salaries?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution, and I recognise the concerns that she has set out. It is essential that we have the best people to lead our schools. That is how we drive and raise standards. But we are absolutely clear that academy trust salaries must be justifiable and must reflect the individual responsibility, and also local recruitment and retention needs. The Academy Trust Handbook gives academy trusts the authority to set their own pay. Trusts must ensure their decisions about levels of executive pay, including salary and other benefits,

“follow a robust evidence-based process and are a reasonable and defensible reflection of the individual’s role and responsibilities.”

We work with trusts on executive pay. Where there is an insufficient demonstration of value for money, or no direct link to improving outcomes for students, and where executive pay in an academy trust is found to be an outlier when compared with similar academy trusts, the Department engages with the trust and assesses compliance with the Academy Trust Handbook. The hon. Lady’s concerns are noted and, where required, the process will be followed.

[Ellie Chowns]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

Does the hon. Lady have another question?

[Ellie Chowns]

Just to expand on that, I would like to ask the Minister whether she thinks it is reasonable and justifiable that an academy trust leader has a salary of over £600,000, when a leader in a local authority with responsibility for an equivalent or larger number of schools would have a salary nowhere near?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Lady has made her point. I will not comment on individual circumstances or individual trust leaders—I do not believe it would be appropriate for me to do so. But she has made her point and it is an important one that is reflected in the processes in the Academy Trust Handbook and the processes that are in place regarding these issues. We will keep it under review as a Department. Obviously the changes that we are bringing will have an impact in terms of setting a more equal balance between the approaches of academies and maintained schools in pay and conditions. That is the intention of the clause.

I hope I have set out clearly how our amendments to the existing clause 45 and subsequent secondary legislation will deliver on our commitment to a floor with no ceiling. It will enable good practice and innovation to continue and will be used by all state schools to recruit and retain the best teachers that they need for our children. I therefore urge members of the Committee to support the amendments, but in this context the current clause 45 should not stand part of the Bill.

[Munira Wilson]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 45 disagreed to.

[The Chair]

So clause 45 does not stand part of the Bill. Does clause 46 stand part of the Bill?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am happy to speak to clause 46.

[The Chair]

We already debated clause 46. If people were not following, I cannot do anything other than express my concern about that. If it is the wish of the Committee that we discuss clause 46 before we put it to the vote, I can be flexible and allow that.

Clause 46

Application of pay and conditions order to education action zones

Question proposed, That clause 46 stand part of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am extremely grateful for your flexibility on this matter, Sir Christopher. I have a very short contribution to make on clause 46. It is a minor technical change that sensibly tidies up legal provision that is no longer necessary. The clause repeals section 128 of the Education Act 2002. That section enabled maintained schools in education action zones to apply to determine their own pay and conditions for teachers. However, as education action zones have not existed since 2005, the most appropriate action is to repeal section 128 of that Act entirely.

Although the legislation to create new education action zones remains in place, the effect of the clause is negligible given that no education action zones currently exist. If any new ones were subsequently created, as a result of this clause they would no longer be able to opt out of the statutory pay and conditions framework, which is entirely consistent with the Government’s new approach to teachers’ pay.

[Neil O'Brien]

Sir Christopher, you are a superb Chairman. You are also a very kind and thoughtful one for those of us who are not quick enough on the draw.

I will not make detailed comments here. We are abolishing something that was set up in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and it struck me that there are related ideas that the Minister might want to pick up rather than abolish.

As well as the education action zones that we are discussing here, the Blair Government had another go at that same idea in the 2002 Act and enabled huge amounts of school freedom in particular areas to bring about improvement. Although lots of work was done on that legislation and it was passed through the House, and lots of work was done to implement it, there was a change of Secretary of State and, strangely, the powers, although they are on the statute book, were never commenced.

We, as the Opposition, do not have the power to commence them, but I would recommend to the Minister that she does. I think there is a great opportunity here to get some innovation into the system. New clause 67, when we come to it, may look familiar to Ministers and to DFE lawyers, because I am afraid we have stolen it—it is a straightforward rip-off of 2002 Blair era reforms.

Even though in this clause abolishes a bit of Blair-era reform, we encourage Ministers to get back on the reforming horse and to return to that spirit. We hope when we come to that new clause that Ministers will spot what we are trying to do.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I note the spoiler for amendments to come.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47

Co-operation between schools and local authorities

Question proposed, That clause 47 stand part of the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Clause 47 creates a new co-operation duty for schools and local authorities. It aims to strengthen how schools and local authorities work together on school admissions and place planning.

Collaboration and co-operation on these issues is vital to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable, can receive a school education. The clause places a duty on mainstream state schools and local authorities to co-operate with each other regarding their respective school admissions functions. It also places a duty on mainstream, special and alternative provision state schools to co-operate with local authorities regarding their place-planning functions.

For the admissions and place-planning system to function effectively, co-operation between schools and local authorities is essential. For example, local authorities need to regularly engage with local schools to produce and deliver proposals for ensuring that there are sufficient school places.

That process normally works well and we know that the vast majority of schools and local authorities already work together effectively to ensure that there is sufficient supply of school places and that local admission systems are working to support parent choice and allowing children to achieve and thrive. However, until now there has been no general duty on schools and local authorities to co-operate on these important issues.

In some instances, that has led to some schools and local authorities acting unilaterally or unhelpfully in regard to admissions or local place planning, without recognising the impact of their decisions on local communities. These new duties will send a strong message to schools and local authorities about the importance of co-operation on school admissions and place planning. As a result, we expect that schools and local authorities will seek to act more collaboratively on these issues, for example, sharing information in a timely manner and ensuring that they are working together in the best interests of the local community.

The absence of specific duties on co-operation also means that there are limited options available for the Secretary of State to intervene where a school or local authority is refusing to co-operate on these issues. Formalising a need to co-operate as a statutory duty will provide a mechanism to address such a situation. Where a school or local authority is failing or refusing to co-operate, the Secretary of State will be able to use her existing and planned enforcement powers to intervene, for example by considering directing the party at fault to take specific steps to comply with their co-operation duty.

[Neil O'Brien]

I will be quite brief. Clauses 47 to 50 are all of a piece, though it is the last of them, clause 50, that we have the greatest concerns about. In the interest of time, I will reserve my comments on the other clauses until later.

On clause 47, I just want to note my concerns that a rather vaguely defined duty to co-operate should not be abused by local authorities, and that a school’s failure to co-operate to the satisfaction of the local authority should not be used as a trigger for some of the rather alarming powers in clause 40. I just mark my concerns on this one, particularly about the vagueness of the duty to co-operate. I will return to more specific concerns on later clauses.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

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

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

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

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 47 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Vicky Foxcroft]

I beg to move, That further consideration be now adjourned.

I specifically thank you, Sir Edward, for being so patient in the Chair for so long. [Interruption.] Sorry, Sir Christopher.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting)

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Member for that intervention —his questions are on the public record, and we will do our best to respond to each of the points. My colleague may also wish to respond.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I rise to seek clarity on how the Committee is conducting itself. The right hon. Gentleman and his colleague, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, have said a number of times that they realise that they are asking a large number of questions and do not expect answers to all of them—

[Damian Hinds]

Not now.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Excuse me. I am speaking. We would be more than happy to answer all of the questions that are being asked, but it may be helpful if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleague were more clear about what questions that do require specific answers have not been answered while we are discussing the specific clause. We would be more than happy to furnish them with responses.

[The Chair]

Order. The general practice is that people put questions, and the Minister attempts to reply to every question. If an Opposition member feels that the Minister has not replied to the question, they can object—you can speak as often as you like—or indeed, you can request that the Minister writes to you, and the Minister can agree to that or not. But the whole purpose of the Committee is for people to ask questions and for Ministers to do their level best, with the help of their excellent officials, to answer every question—which these excellent Ministers will of course do.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

rose—

[Catherine McKinnell]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I did not realise we were going to spend today talking about football.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think it might be helpful to clarify—although I am surprised it needs to be clarified for a former Secretary of State for Education—that the current exemptions for qualified teacher status, which he will be well aware of, already apply to maintained schools and they will continue to apply as part of the extension of the same requirements to the academy system. He will be well aware of the exemptions, and he will be well aware that what he is saying is not correct.

[Damian Hinds]

No, no, no; he may be well aware of many things, but he is certainly not well aware that what he is saying is not correct. He is totally aware that what he just said is correct: that people who do not have a PGCE or QTS may still form a valuable and useful part of the staff at a school to help kids to learn in a variety of disciplines, including non-academic ones such as sport and art.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

It was 3.2%—so the proportion in fact shrank slightly over those 14 years. I therefore wonder what verdict Government Members, in their bid to avoid a race to the bottom, give on the Labour Government from 1997 to 2010, which left us with 3.2% of the teaching workforce not being qualified.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Does the right hon. Member have a breakdown of how many of that percentage are teachers in training?

[Damian Hinds]

I do—I am so glad the hon. Lady asked that, because I asked the same question that she rightly did. Presumably, most of the 3.2% were on a journey towards qualified teacher status. I have the spreadsheet on front of me: the proportion of full-time equivalent teachers without qualified teacher status who were not on a QTS route in 2010-11 was 85.6%.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Well, Minister, we have had a lively debate.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Thank you, Sir Edward. I rise to speak to amendments in the names of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and the hon. Member for Twickenham, and to clause 40 stand part.

Turning first to amendment 73, I do appreciate that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has some concerns about clause 40. However, this amendment could deny new teachers high-quality training and induction, which is based on the evidence of what makes good teaching during the critical early years of their careers. Moreover, the amendment would apply to schools maintained by local authorities and special schools, which are already required to employ teachers who have or are working towards QTS—a system, I might add, that is working quite effectively. As well as ensuring subject knowledge, QTS ensures that teachers understand how children learn, can adapt their teaching to the needs of children in their class—particularly and including those with special educational needs—and can develop effective behaviour management techniques. It is remarkable that we are having to justify the importance of teacher training.

[Damian Hinds]

You’re not.

[Neil O’Brien]

Straw man.

[Catherine McKinnell]

It has been referred to as a bureaucratic hurdle a number of times during this debate, which I think those in the teaching profession will find remarkable, as well as parents, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Helens North said.

Amendment 73 could also lead to some unqualified teachers either leaving the profession or moving to another school before the five-year deadline that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston suggests, rather than gaining the training and support to which all teachers should be entitled. That would risk having a negative impact on both the quality of teaching and the retention of teachers. We recognise that schools will still need some flexibility, so we are updating regulations to clarify that schools will still be able to recruit an unqualified teacher. Those teachers will have three terms to secure a place on an appropriate route to qualified teacher status, which will ensure that schools’ recruitment processes for teachers are not held up in any way.

[Damian Hinds]

Just to ask a factual question that I should know the answer to, are those regulations published?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Those are the regulations that are already in place for the maintained sector.

[Damian Hinds]

The Minister said she had updated them.

[Catherine McKinnell]

They will be updated to apply to the academies sector.

Turning to amendment 74, I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to ensure that the clause does not impact the working arrangements of unqualified teachers already working in academies. We agree that the requirement should not impact existing employment arrangements in academies, but we need to do that in a way that does not inadvertently affect the way that legislation already applies to local authority maintained schools and special schools.

We will, subject to the passage of the Bill, provide an exemption in regulations for any teacher who commences their employment with an academy school or trust prior to September 2026. Those teachers who move to another employer after that date will need to obtain qualified teacher status. We will set out an exemption in regulations for teachers who are employed to teach in a primary or secondary academy setting. That will mean that we are able to provide schools with reasonable time to prepare for any necessary changes to their recruitment procedures following changes to primary legislation.

On amendments 75 and 94, I recognise the challenges around teacher recruitment that we have inherited. However, the solution should not be to embed lower standards for shortage subjects in primary legislation. The amendments would create uncertainty for schools and teachers, as the teachers that schools employ could move in and out of the requirement to hold qualified teacher status depending on each year’s initial teacher training recruitment data. They would also change the requirements for qualified teacher status in local authority maintained schools and special schools, which are already required to employ teachers with qualified teacher status.

Under clause 40, schools will continue to be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status for any subject and then support those teachers to gain qualified teacher status through an appropriate route.

[Neil O’Brien]

It seems to me that the Government recognise the importance of pragmatism and that that is why they have chosen to exempt FE, 14-to-19 academies, 16-to-19 academies, university technical colleges, studio schools and non-maintained early years settings, and I would be grateful if the Minister would confirm that. I put it to her that the same argument that has caused Ministers to pragmatically exclude those types of schools is perhaps also an argument for excluding shortage subjects.

[Catherine McKinnell]

As the hon. Member is aware, qualified teacher status is the professional qualification for teachers in primary and secondary schools. Currently, it applies to local authority maintained schools and special schools. Under these proposals, it will apply to all primary and secondary state-funded schools in England. As he is aware, there are currently some exceptions to that in legislation. Those exceptions will continue to apply as the requirement is applied to the academy sector.

On the second part of the hon. Member’s question—

[Neil O’Brien]

The second part of my question was about the settings the Minister has chosen to exclude—let us be clear that this is a new exclusion from a new rule. They are settings where the share of non-QTS teachers is typically higher. We are still looking for the explanation of why some schools are different from others. These are schools with kids of the same age—schools with 14-year-olds—but some will have the new requirement and others will not. I am just trying to get Ministers to explain the logic of that. It seems to be pragmatic: there are not enough QTS teachers in those schools and Ministers do not want to create a problem by applying their new rules to those types of settings, of which there are many. I am just trying to make the same point about shortage subjects. I do not know if the Minister can see the connection.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I wonder if it would be helpful if I finished my comments, and then I will be more than happy to come back to the hon. Gentleman’s question if I have not answered it. I am currently responding to the amendments tabled by various Members, and then I will set out the rationale for clause 40. I would be more than happy to answer specific questions at the end if I have not anticipated them, which I hope to do.

Under clause 40, schools will continue to be able to recruit teachers without qualified teacher status for any subject and then support those teachers to gain qualified teacher status through an appropriate route. We are updating the regulations to clarify that they will have three terms to secure a place on an appropriate route to QTS. We believe that will give schools adequate flexibility for circumstances in which they need to recruit a subject expert who does not have qualified teacher status, but can be on a route to gaining it under these requirements.

We are focused on ensuring that we have enough qualified teachers available for schools. Obviously, the best recruitment strategy is retention, and that starts with making sure that teachers who are currently teaching have access to high-quality training and induction support. We have a range of measures beyond the Bill to address the recruitment and retention of teachers in shortage subjects, including a targeted retention incentive, worth up to £6,000 after tax, for mathematics, physics, chemistry and computing teachers in the first five years of their careers who choose to work in disadvantaged schools.

I have considered amendment 76, in the name of the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, but amending clause 40 in that way would build a loophole into the changes that the clause seeks to make, so the amendment effectively seeks to remove the clause. Clause 40 demonstrates our commitment to qualified teacher status and the professional status of teaching. High-quality teaching is the most important in-school factor for improving outcomes for all children. Great teachers need subject expertise, but they also need to understand how children learn, how to adapt age-specific approaches, and how to adapt their teaching to children in their class with a range of different needs.

This Bill will continue to raise standards. It builds on reforms made by previous Governments, who ensured that the essential knowledge associated with great teaching is incorporated into all primary and teacher training. We want to ensure that new teachers have the benefit of that knowledge, whichever type of school they work in. For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.

Clause 40 will help us break down barriers to opportunity by making sure that new teachers are prepared for a successful teaching career through high-quality, regulated initial teacher training, followed by statutory induction to support their professional development. It will reaffirm the professional status of teaching and emphasise the importance of high-quality teaching for children’s outcomes.

Academies will need to ensure that new teachers entering the classroom have or are working towards qualified teacher status, followed by the completion of statutory induction. The qualified teacher status requirement will ensure that new teachers and experienced educators moving from other settings are supported to have long-term, successful teaching careers and are in the best possible position to have an impact on children’s life chances. It will not apply to any teacher who was recruited and employed before the implementation date, unless they move to a different employer. That will minimise any disruption to current academy employment arrangements.

The clause will ensure that teachers who gain qualified teacher status after the implementation date complete statutory induction so that they receive a programme of support that ensures that they meet standards and are well trained at the start of their careers. It will bring academies in line with maintained schools and will standardise the approach across state-funded schools for new teachers to the classroom to have or be working towards qualified teacher status, and to complete statutory induction.

I hope that answers the question about why we are doing this. To allay the concerns that have been raised, let me say that the exemptions that are currently in place for maintained schools will remain and will be extended to academies. I hope that answers that question.

[Neil O’Brien]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I was going to answer some more specific questions, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman wants to put his question again so that I appreciate what it is.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister talks about maintaining or continuing with various things but, to be clear, the clause will introduce a new exemption. This is not just about later phases of education; it is about children in normal secondary schools. The Government have chosen to exempt further education, 14-to-19 academies, 16-to-19 academies, UTCs, studio schools and non-maintained school early years settings. There are a heck of a lot of state schools that are being exempted from the things that the Ministers say are so desperately important. I still have not heard the reason why, if they are so important, they do not apply to them, too.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I have been pretty clear that we are basically bringing to the state school academy sector the same requirements that currently apply to the local authority maintained school sector and to special schools.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Minister says “ to the…academy sector”, but she is not doing it to 14-to-19 academies, to 16-to-19 academies, or to UTCs and studio schools, which are both types of academy. It is not, as she says, all academies; it is only some, and I do not know why.

[Catherine McKinnell]

High-quality teaching is available for those who want to teach in further education settings or early years settings. Early years teacher status is available for those wishing to specialise in teaching babies and young children. There is an optional professional status, qualified teacher learning and skills status, available to further education teachers. None of those things are the subject of this Bill, which deals specifically with primary and secondary schools in the state sector, including local authority maintained schools, special schools and academies.

There is a range of city technology colleges, studio schools and university technical colleges that offer a particular curriculum or focus in some respect on a particular artistic, technical or vocational education. We want to ensure that they have the flexibility that they require to employ specialist teachers with a range of expertise, knowledge and experience to deliver that education effectively.

The intention of the clause is to extend the already well-functioning qualified teacher status in the maintained sector to all primary and secondary schools so that parents know that their child has a core offer—it is not just about qualified teacher status; it is about the national curriculum, which we will get on to, and I am sure we will have additional debate on the teacher pay floor and conditions—and teachers who work in state primary and secondary schools, whether they are a maintained schools or academy schools, know that there is a core offer for them to work in that environment. The purpose of the clause is to provide clarity about what both a teacher and a parent can expect from a school.

I can go into more detail on specific points that hon. Members have made, but I believe I have covered most outstanding queries. I will leave it there, unless hon. Members have specific issues that they feel I have not addressed.

[Neil O’Brien]

I wish to press our amendment 75. To explain that briefly, across the public sector, be it in the civil service, the police or social work, we are trying to make it easier for talented people to come in from the outside, yet in this field we are moving in exactly the opposite direction. The Government are offering pragmatism in some fields, but not in the case of shortage subjects. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 73, but I am keen to press our amendment 75.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 75, in clause 40, page 99, line 23, at end insert—

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

‘(1A) Where a person is carrying out such work for the purposes of teaching a shortage subject, the requirement in subsection (1)(a) does not apply.

(1B) For the purposes of this section, “shortage subject” means any subject in relation to which the Department for Education’s recruitment targets for initial teacher training have been missed in the most recent year for which such statistics exist.’”—(Neil O’Brien.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 44—Flexibility to not follow the National Curriculum—

“(1) The Education Act 2002 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 79(4), omit from ‘include’ to the end of paragraph (a).

(3) In section 80—

(a) in subsection (1)(b), omit ‘known as’ and insert ‘which may be, or include,’;

(b) after subsection (1), insert—

‘(1A) Any curriculum taught under subsection (1)(b) which is not the National Curriculum for England must not be of a lower standard than the National Curriculum for England.

(1B) All curriculums must be assessed by the Chief Inspector to be of high quality.’.

(4) In section 88—

(a) in subsection (1), omit from ‘that the’ to ‘is implemented’ and insert ‘a balanced and broadly based curriculum’;

(b) in subsection (1A), omit from ‘that the’ to ‘are implemented’ and insert ‘appropriate assessment arrangements’.”

This new clause would allow local authority maintained schools to offer a curriculum that is different from the national curriculum but that is broad and balanced. It extends academy freedoms over the curriculum to maintained schools.

New clause 53—Exemption from requirement to follow National Curriculum in the interests of improving standards—

“In the Education Act 2002, after section 95 (Appeals against directions under section 93 etc) insert—

‘95A Exception in the interests of improving standards

Where the proprietor of an Academy school or a local authority maintained school believes that the raising of standards in the school would be better served by the school’s curriculum not including the National Curriculum, any provisions of this Act or any other Act do not apply so far as they require the school’s curriculum to include or follow the National Curriculum.’”

New clause 54—Exemption from requirement to follow National Curriculum where Ofsted approves curriculum—

“In the Education Act 2002, after section 95 (Appeals against directions under section 93 etc) insert—

‘95A Exemption where Ofsted certifies curriculum as broad and balanced

Where—

(a) the proprietor of an Academy school or a local authority maintained school believes that the raising of standards in the school would be better served by the school’s curriculum not including the National Curriculum, and

(b) His Majesty’s Chief Inspector has, within the previous ten years, certified that the school provides its pupils with a broad and balanced curriculum,

any provisions of this Act or any other Act do not apply so far as they require the school’s curriculum to include or follow the National Curriculum.’”

New clause 65—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 66—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.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Parents and children have a right to expect that every child will receive a core education that builds the knowledge, skills and attributes they need to thrive, regardless of the school they attend. Our reforms will create a richer, broader curriculum that will ensure that children are prepared for life, work and the future. We want all children to benefit from the reformed curriculum, so the clause will introduce a requirement for academies to follow the national curriculum in the same way as maintained schools.

That does not mean prescribing every last detail of what is taught and how. The reformed curriculum will allow all schools plenty of scope for innovation. It will be designed to empower, not restrict, academies and other schools, and will ensure that teachers have the flexibility to adapt to the needs of their pupils. The measures will be commenced only after the independent curriculum and assessment review has concluded and we have responded to its recommendations and developed a reformed curriculum. The clause will give every child guaranteed access to a cutting-edge curriculum that will provide an excellent foundation in reading, writing and maths, and ensure that they leave compulsory education ready for life and ready for work. I hope the Committee agrees that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

New clause 44 was tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. G. K. Chesterton famously said, “You should never take down a fence until you know why it was put up.” The national curriculum was established in the late 1980s to ensure that children receive a broad, high-quality education. It provides a strong foundation, regardless of background or the school attended. It is not about meeting an abstract standard; it is about making sure that all children have access to the knowledge and skills necessary to thrive in society and the economy of the future. The national curriculum also enables credible national qualifications, facilitates smoother school transitions and supports accountability.

However, it is not, and was never intended to be, prescriptive. Kenneth Baker—now Lord Baker—said when introducing the national curriculum:

“We want to build upon…the professionalism of the many fine and dedicated teachers throughout our education system… The national curriculum will provide scope for imaginative approaches developed by our teachers.”

Much has changed since then, but that principle still very much applies. By taking away that curriculum fence, the new clause could undermine the consistency and equity of education across state-funded schools at a time when we are trying to assure it. Allowing maintained schools to deviate from the national curriculum could lead to a more fragmented system, in which the quality and content of education varies widely. It was that problem, and the lack of transparency in and accountability for what our children were being taught, that led to the curriculum fence being erected in the first place. We must not return to curriculum decisions being taken in what James Callaghan famously called a “secret garden”.

As drafted, the new clause could also place an unimaginable burden on Ofsted to assess the curriculum of any school deviating from the national curriculum to ensure high quality. Intentionally or otherwise, the new clause would also remove the requirement to deliver national curriculum assessments, including the phonics screening check and SATs. That would undermine key quality measures, making it harder for parents to compare how well schools teach pupils and harder for schools to be held to account. On that basis, I invite the hon. Members not to press the new clause to a vote.

New clause 53, also tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich—

School Accountability and Intervention

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 3rd February 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on this Government’s plans to reform school accountability.

Before I begin, I want to say that I am devastated to hear that a boy has died after a stabbing at a school in Sheffield. My heart goes out to his family, friends and the entire school community at this very distressing time. We are in contact with the school and the council to offer support, and investigations are under way. Nothing is more important than the safety of our children.

This Government are clear about the need to secure the very best education for our young people, and we are determined that our schools are reformed to deliver that ambition to enable every child to achieve and thrive. That reform begins at the very start of a child’s journey, with an early years system that sets up our children for the best start in life. That means brilliant schools, with excellent, qualified staff, driving high and rising standards in all parts of our country. It reflects our determination to ensure that we break, in the generations ahead, the unfair link between background and opportunity.

Like so many in this House, I know the value of a brilliant school because I went to one in the west end of Newcastle, in the north-east. My school set high standards for all its pupils. It nurtured my talents and love of learning, and it propelled me forward to university and a career in law. So I know full well that the system can work and that a good school can be an incredible force for good. My school set high standards and expected us all to aim high. High standards and high expectations are this Government’s vision for every child and every school in our country. We will set no ceiling on what children can achieve.

We must recognise that Members from all parts of the House, including David Blunkett and Michael Gove, have driven forward great educational reform. Reform has also been driven by the dedication and determination of teachers across the country. I benefited from the first statutory national curriculum, introduced by Lord Baker in 1988. The arrival of Ofsted and the common inspection framework brought far greater rigour to school inspections. Numeracy hour and literacy hour brought a clear focus to the impact and importance of high-quality teaching, in and of itself. Performance tables brought new transparency for parents, and SATs showed children’s attainment across key stages for the first time.

The sponsored academy programme, started by Labour and expanded by the Conservatives, has been instrumental in raising standards in many schools. Multi-academy trusts brought diversity, innovation and a drive for improvement to our schools. The focus on evidence and pragmatism was embodied in the Education Endowment Foundation. There was a switch to phonics in the wake of the Rose review, and a focus on a curriculum rich in knowledge. All of those reforms brought changes to our system, transforming the life chances of millions of children.

We understand, better than any previous generation, what works to drive up standards for children. We know, more clearly than ever before, that a great education for every child is not an impossible promise, but one that Governments can and must deliver. We are determined, more fiercely than ever before, to use that understanding and knowledge to take our schools forward. However, in the past decade, the ambition for excellence which had powered Governments from the left and the right, and the appetite for reforms that delivered better life chances for our children, have faded, and the system has drifted.

Conservative Members may not like hearing that, so let me remind them about this Government’s inheritance in July, which tells a less happy story: a third of children are finishing primary school without the reading, writing and maths skills they need; children with special educational needs are struggling to get the right support, after spending years in a system that is not serving them; the attainment gap, between those from well-off backgrounds and those who are less privileged, is shamefully wide; young people in London are 70% more likely to enter university compared with their peers in the north-east, where I went to school; and hundreds of thousands of children are in schools that are stuck, receiving poor Ofsted judgments year on year.

This Government are impatient for our children’s success. They get only one childhood, so we will not rest from ensuring that they get the best education they can and we will not tolerate our children being let down. We will not sit back and await changes in schools from governance changes alone. This Labour Government will stop at nothing to improve schools and children’s life chances. We can and must build on the legacy of reform, reignite the ambition for excellence and drive the change our children need, to push once more for high and rising standards in every school, and to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.

A key part of that change must be a reformed and improved approach to both inspection and accountability that champions good practice, encourages collaboration in schools and, crucially, shines a light on all areas of strength and weakness. Today, the Department for Education and Ofsted are together setting out plans for a new era of accountability, and a renewed ambition for every child and every school. Schools that are stuck but have the capacity to improve must be supported and pushed to do so. We will get our new RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—teams, whose members are expert school leaders, in early. We will use them to facilitate faster improvement, using knowledge, experience and the reports of reformed, high-quality inspections to turn schools around. We will work to chart a path to progress, and intervene in way that is effective, bespoke and proportionate, making a difference as early as possible. Today, we are announcing over £20 million for the new RISE teams over the next 15 months. Our first 20 advisers are already in place. They will work with schools across the country to drive improvement and share best practice, because when one school fails, we have all failed the children of that school.

This new era of accountability will come with a new era of inspection. Single headline grades pushed our system on and brought proper scrutiny to our schools, but the time for change has come. They had become high stakes for schools but inadequate to drive the change that our children need—too blunt, too rough and too vague, leaving too many schools without a proper diagnosis and not clear on how to improve. We need a more diagnostic approach that is targeted and focused, raising the bar on what we expect from schools, with the ingredients of a great education each given their own grade, new report cards identifying excellence and shining a light on performance, clarity for parents, and challenge backed by support for schools.

Those diagnostics will drive our approach to improvement. The worst performing schools, whether local authority maintained or academies, will be moved to a strong trust. We will never flinch from bringing in new leadership when children’s life chances demand it, but in this new era of accountability we want schools to support each other. We will foster a self-improving system, where all seek to raise their standards. A proposed new top grade of “exemplary” will signal educational practice that is simply too good for schools to keep to themselves. When a school is awarded “exemplary” in any area, what it is doing should be shared across the country so that others can learn from the very best. Our quest for high and rising standards is universal. We want good schools to become great, and great schools to become even better, sharing their excellence along the way.

Reformed accountability will underpin everything else that we do in education, whether that is delivering better special educational needs and disabilities provision in mainstream schools, or getting to the bottom of the attendance crisis. Inclusion and attendance will both be part of raising standards across our schools.

The changes that we are making to accountability will draw on the wisdom of the entire sector. Today, the Department and Ofsted launch 12-week consultations, seeking the views of those who know the school system best—teachers, school leaders and parents—on the principles needed for inspection, support and intervention. Ofsted has already drawn on the findings of its Big Listen initiative to inform its approach to future inspections, but further action is needed. Ofsted’s consultation will seek the views of parents, carers, professionals and learners on how Ofsted conducts inspections and the way it reports them. The consultation includes proposals for new inspection methodology, alongside the proposed inspection framework, toolkits and report cards, to change how inspections look and feel for schools. Consultation and parental involvement are essential. Neither the Government nor Ofsted can drive up standards for children alone. We have excellent schools and trusts across our country, which have come about thanks to the hard work of school leaders, teachers and others, and reforms passed in this House. They have raised standards down the decades.

The Government believe that the best way to celebrate success is to multiply it, because where someone is born, their family, their city and their parents’ income should not determine their access to the life-changing power of a good education. The measures for school accountability that I have outlined will support and challenge every school to do better for its pupils, share its successes, and bring high and rising standards to every corner of the country, so that every child can go to a good local school, and look forward to a bright future. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

[Laura Trott (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

I am grateful to the Schools Minister for advance sight of her statement, and I echo her words: our thoughts and prayers are with the parents of the 15-year-old boy whose life was so tragically cut short, and with the teachers and pupils at All Saints Catholic high school.

We are promised today a better and faster approach to school improvement, but what we have in front of us is a proposed system that is slower and weaker. The Secretary of State repeatedly talked about a new era today. It is a new era: one of regression, confusion and poorly thought out policy. We have had that consistently with the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill over the last few months. The Education Secretary said that the Bill did not cut pay. It did. The Government said that the Bill would not reduce school choice, yet their own impact assessment says that it does. Now we have a speech that says that academisation is a key driver of rising standards, yet the Government are taking away automatic academy orders in the Bill.

Once again with the Secretary of State, there is a gap between her rhetoric and the reality. The reality is weaker accountability, weaker standards and a slower response. The Minister, whom I respect, has been sent out in the place of the Secretary of State, who is happy to give a speech to a think-tank but not to the House, to try to sell the nonsense that the proposal will mean faster school improvement, when the Secretary of State’s own document released today shows an 18-month delay in turning around schools. Instead of immediate new management in a failing school, which is what happens at the moment, the Secretary of State proposes to get a team of Department for Education bureaucrats to come in for 18 months. Only after they make no improvements will the Education Secretary consent to actually getting a new team in place to lead the school. What will that mean? More children in failing schools for longer.

As the Minister says, we know what works to turn around failing schools. A good academy trust taking over a failing school is the best intervention we can make to turn schools around. There is no evidence whatsoever that the approach proposed today, with a delay and with a RISE team going in, will be any better. Can the Minister confirm that she has no evidence that her approach of delaying the academy order will be better? Can she point to where her proposed approach has been trialled effectively? It is unconscionable to foist a new system into place that is not evidenced and that will make things worse, not better.

The loudest criticisms of ending the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies do not even come from the Opposition, but from the Children’s Commissioner, a former schools commissioner, school leaders and even Labour MPs. A Government Back Bencher has said,

“making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 902.]

I agree.

We have consistently seen that where the academy order is not mandatory, there are endless legal delays. Just last week, the Secretary of State revoked an academy order after the school threatened legal action. That is exactly what those who have raised concerns said would happen—it is utterly shameful. I ask the Minister: how many cohorts of children have to pass through a failing school before the Secretary of State will take action? How many children will they fail before they do something?

Academisation works—even the Government’s own impact assessment of the Bill admits that. But what is Labour’s much-anticipated grand alternative? New regional school improvement teams. What is in the place of expert academy trusts with proven leadership taking over schools? The Minister talked of 20 advisers. To put that in context, the Harris academy trust alone has over 90 expert staff focused on school improvement. Does the Minister really think that 20 people is sufficient? How does that compare with the number of people in the Department’s communications team, for example? What is happening to all the schools due to receive structural intervention from the beginning of this year? Are we replacing new management with vague advice? All this is doing is creating a weaker system and uncertainty and delay, and it is children from the most deprived areas who will suffer the most.

On Ofsted, the Government claim that parents and teachers wanted clarity. In response, we have moved from four to five ratings, multiple different categories, including one more for safeguarding, and no overall score. The new system being proposed today is complicated and pleases nobody. The Association of School and College Leaders has said that the new grading system is “bewildering”. What is the Minister’s response?

Another day, another chaotic reset attempt from this Government. It is educational vandalism, however they try to dress it up. The Children’s Commissioner said last week that the schools Bill would leave children

“spending longer in failing schools”.

Minister, she is right, isn’t she?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Perhaps the right hon. Lady would recognise the legacy that her Government left behind: schools crumbling, standards falling, a lose-lose-lose special educational needs and disabilities system, and a generation missing from England’s schools. It is no wonder that a shadow Minister admitted that they should hang their heads in shame over their record.

In little over 100 days, this Labour Government have moved education back to the centre of national life, with breakfast clubs in primaries, savings for families on uniform costs, nurseries for families, schools being rebuilt across the country, better pay for teachers, school report cards, the development of a broader and richer curriculum, and a child poverty taskforce to clean up the Tories’ mess.

Labour is delivering a new era for school standards, overhauling school inspection and accountability, and driving high and rising standards for every child in every school. We will create a one-stop-shop for parents with our new digital school profiles, and we will challenge the 600 stuck schools that have received consecutive “poor” Ofsted judgments. That is the new front in the fight against low expectations, and our RISE teams will spearhead the stronger, faster system, prioritising those schools.

On top of those measures, the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will improve standards by getting excellent qualified teachers in every classroom to teach a cutting-edge curriculum so that parents know their child will get an excellent core offer. As part of our plan for change, we are giving every child the best start in life. That is the difference that a Labour Government will make.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement, and I associate myself with her remarks about the tragic incident in Sheffield.

The consultations that the Minister has announced are being launched in the context of considerable pressures in our education system, particularly the crisis in the SEND system, which has far-reaching consequences for every part of the sector, and the serious problems in the recruitment and retention of teachers. The Education Committee has heard from stakeholders that accountability pressures can encourage exclusionary practices to maintain academic performance. School leaders regularly raise concerns that the lack of resources to meet the needs of children with SEND makes it hard for them to meet the needs of every child. How does the Department plan to safeguard children with SEND to ensure that accountability pressures on schools do not lead to exclusionary practices but instead promote inclusive approaches that support the needs of students with SEND?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to focus on that issue. Improving the SEND system is clearly a focal point for delivering on our opportunity mission to break the link between background and opportunity. We have made a clear commitment to inclusive mainstream education. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill includes measures to give local authorities more levers on admissions, and Ofsted has made it clear that inclusion will be a key feature of inspection—not instead of high and rising standards, but as well as. She will know that we are keeping this matter under review. Our reform plans are in progress, and we will make further announcements on them in due course.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. The hon. Lady will know that she has well exceeded the allotted two minutes.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Following the end of headline judgments in September, Ofsted undertook the big listen, and listened very carefully to feedback on the way it conducts inspections while also reviewing the format for reporting on those inspections. I note the hon. Lady’s comments in that regard. In the new system that has been designed, that work has paved the way for the roll-out of school report cards. Subject to consultations—both the Government and Ofsted are very open to the views of the profession—they will be rolled out in September.

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.

The hon. Lady’s comments in relation to SEND are well made. As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), that is something that Ofsted will be judging, looking specifically at inclusion as well as—not instead of—high and rising attainment standards in schools. The reformed accountability and improvement systems very much build on the work of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which will: require teachers to have, or work towards, qualified teacher status; ensure that all schools teach a cutting-edge national curriculum, following the curriculum and assessment review; and restore teaching as an attractive profession through a floor, but no ceiling, for pay and conditions.

All those reforms combined will drive high and rising standards and break down the barriers to opportunity for every child.

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I appreciate all the work that my hon. Friend is doing, but the governance structures of multi-academy trusts lack transparency, not least to the local community. In some areas, their executive boards are choosing members and trustees, without the rigour of accountability. Will my hon. Friend ensure that mechanisms are available to allow far more robust scrutiny of multi-academy trusts, as well as the option to return those schools to the local authority?

[Catherine McKinnell]

As part of its proposed reforms, Ofsted will be looking at the leadership of schools, including their governance, because good leadership is clearly the route map to children’s success within them. We are legislating for all schools to have a duty to co-operate with local authorities on place planning and admissions to ensure we have a whole schools system that works together. We encourage collaboration by outstanding, excellent, exemplary schools—trusts in particular—that can share their expertise across the board: a collaborative schools system that serves the community and, where possible, ensures that every child has access to a good local school within their community.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

In my experience, parents have a pretty good instinct for what is a good school, and the great generator of progress has been the academy programme, with headteachers responding to what parents want. We should be giving them more freedom, not less. Is there not a danger that if we create highly complex Ofsted reports with league tables across 40 different areas, we will replace headteachers concentrating on what parents want with a tick-box culture focused on appeasing the man in Whitehall? The solution is not endless auditing but delivering what parents want.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I find the notion that parents will not be able to understand more information about their child’s school a bit insulting to parents, who care deeply about their children and their education. Parents tell us they want more information, not less. A one-word judgment does not adequately sum up a school. The Ofsted proposal is to report on nine different areas, all of which are key ingredients of a child’s education. That may enable schools that perform in an exemplary or a very strong way on some measures to be given due credit—where they are tackling attendance or behaviour issues—so that they can share best practice. This will be a self-improving system and we will recognise good practice, but we will target—laser-focused—areas that need to improve.

[Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)]

In spite of the broken state of SEND provision in my constituency and across the country, I have had the real privilege of meeting some schools that are going above and beyond to support pupils with additional need, but not all schools, whether it in their approach to admissions, provision or exclusions, are being held to the same standards. As well as this Government’s welcome investment in SEND reforms, how will our changes to accountability ensure that every school is held to the highest possible standards on inclusion?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight inclusion, and that is one of the great opportunities presented. The report card system will look at a range of practice across a school, and inclusion is a part of the proposals. We need to see a more inclusive mainstream system, and better co-operation and collaboration at a local level to ensure that every child, regardless of their special educational need or disability, has access to the excellent education that will set them up to thrive.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

There seem to be a lot of narrative resets around in Government at the moment, but I must say that I for one was thrilled and refreshed to hear the hon. Lady speaking about school standards with pride. I was thrilled to hear her speaking about the role of year 6 assessments, phonics and multi-academy trusts in driving improvement. It is perhaps a good thing the Government Dispatch Box does not have wing mirrors, because not all her colleagues looked quite as excited as I was. I admire her bravery, but I say to her that with words must come deeds if she is serious about this. One thing she could do is excise from the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill those large elements of part 2 that undermine the freedoms and flexibilities for academies and academy trusts that have enabled such improvements to take place. Will she do it?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a whole package of measures that will not only deliver landmark reforms to child safeguarding, but unleash the ability of all schools to collaborate and work together in operating under this new accountability system to drive high and rising standards. This will ensure that every child has the offer of a national curriculum, a qualified teacher in every classroom, and high and rising standards in every school in England.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement, particularly considering the awful news she had to convey to this House. As a former teacher, I saw at first hand the damage that high-stakes single-word Ofsted judgments had on teachers and headteachers not just in my constituency of Harlow, but across Essex. I welcome this Government’s focus on raising standards in our schools, but does she recognise that under the previous Government there was far too much focus on stick rather than carrot when it came to supporting teachers? Any change to the Ofsted framework needs to support our hard-working teachers, whose mental health and wellbeing are rock bottom at the moment.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and I commend him for his experience in the classroom, which is clearly valuable. We always want to encourage more teachers. Indeed, the whole reasoning behind these reforms is to create an accountability system that recognises good practice and identifies where improvements can be made, but also diagnoses how such improvements can be made and ensures there is the ability to create a self-improving system among our schools, so that they can support one another to drive forward those improvements in the interests of everybody. It is not about punishing schools; it is about supporting schools to create those improvements, which we know that they want and we want to see for children.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

Headteachers in my constituency of South Devon have expressed some disappointment today at the reform in the Ofsted regime; they said it offered the opportunity for fundamental reform but they do not see that. For example, there are no details on how inclusion will be measured, which we know is absolutely crucial for addressing the SEND crisis. As this is such a key part of the new inspection process, can the Minister assure the House that details of how inclusion will be measured will be made available while there is still time for meaningful consultation?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Lady raises an important point and we absolutely want to hear from schools about how issues like inclusion can be successfully measured and incentivised and held accountable as part of this system. Along with the document Ofsted has produced today it has produced toolkits that set out its inspection framework, and I urge the hon. Lady and those in her constituency who are making representations to take a look. If additional issues are outstanding, of course she should get in touch.

[Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and her commitment to driving up standards in all our schools—and I gently invite those on the Conservative Benches who seem to think that multi-academy trusts are a panacea for everything to take a look at the experience of my constituents in Hastings and Rye, where we have been spectacularly failed by some particularly bad academy chains. Nowhere is this rise in school standards more urgently needed than my constituency, where over half of young people leave school without the equivalent of a grade C in GCSE maths and English. Three out of three secondary schools in Hastings are currently rated as requiring improvement and at one of them, Ark Alexandra, 123 children left last term because they did not feel that school was meeting their needs. Will my hon. Friend urgently meet me to discuss these issues and how we can drive up school standards in Hastings and Rye?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will happily meet my hon. Friend. I know she is committed to securing better outcomes for the schools and children in her area. We are making these reforms so that we can go further to make improvement better and faster. We want to add to the tools in our box to help schools improve. We are not taking anything away; we are only adding to the ability to ensure we get the change within our school system that far too many children desperately need.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

How many structural interventions does the Minister expect schools to get each year—not RISE interventions but structural interventions?

[Catherine McKinnell]

We expect the range of structural interventions to continue as currently, at least for the next 12 months, because we will continue to intervene where schools are causing concern and to mandate structural change. We will also continue to mandate it where significant improvements are required in schools. We will, however, see a doubling of the number of schools that need significant improvement through the RISE system; so we are not reducing the number of interventions that the previous Government undertook, but doubling the number of schools being helped and supported to improve.

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. In Telford there are five stuck schools. The rise in investment from £6,000 to potentially £100,000 per stuck school means that up to £470,000 of extra investment is coming the way of Telford schools. From speaking to my wife, who is a primary school teacher in Telford, I know that it is about not just money, but peer support and tapping into excellence and expertise. Can my hon. Friend assure me that the money, which is game changing, will also be accompanied by that extra support?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend has correctly identified that we see the future of school improvement as very much driven by a whole school self-improving system, where schools will support one another to drive that improvement. We are putting the extra money in place and we really want to be laser-focused on those 600 schools that have been stuck on far too low a rating for far too long, to ensure that the more than 300,000 children in them are supported as quickly as possible with improved outcomes. As my hon. Friend says about peer support, it is important that we tap into knowledge and expertise from trusts that we know are doing an excellent job.

[Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)]

I have spoken to a number of headteachers in Maidenhead today, who have told me that what Ofsted is proposing is incredibly overcomplicated, makes “exceptional” seem out of reach and will be a blunt tool that will not allow schools’ individual identities to be taken into account. They still do not believe that anybody can accurately judge a school’s strengths and areas for improvement within two days. What does the Minister have to say to those headteachers, and will she meet me and Maidenhead heads to discuss?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I encourage those headteachers to feed back to Ofsted as part of the consultation process. Obviously, it is Ofsted’s consultation process. It determines the mechanisms by which it will undertake the new inspections, and it sets the framework. As the Department for Education, we are responsible for implementing the findings of an Ofsted inspection, but we are interested in making sure that it achieves what we want it to achieve, which is to drive high and rising standards. We are confident that the new framework will do that. The Department for Education also has its consultation document out on how we see the reforms working in practice. If the hon. Gentleman would like to meet and discuss that, I would be happy to do so.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome what my hon. Friend has said today. I recently visited Mile Cross primary school in Norwich, which is a shining beacon of what a local school can provide to its residents. Will she join me in paying tribute to the staff and pupils at Mile Cross? She touched on this in her statement, but how can we ensure that lessons in good practice are shared from primary schools such as Mile Cross, not just across the county, but across the country?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is right to celebrate the good work being done by schools in her local area. We recognise that many schools, both in the trust sector and in the maintained sector, are working tirelessly day in, day out to deliver excellent outcomes for their children. Report cards will clearly identify what needs to improve, and it is important that they do so, but they will also encourage schools to work together to identify the exemplary practices that should be spread more widely. She is right to highlight the many examples in her area and to look forward to schools working across the system to drive improvement across the board.

[Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)]

How will the selection of colour-coded performance areas on the report card be determined by the views and needs of parents as much as by Ministers and the education establishment? How do the exceptional schools that the Minister has described differ from the beacon schools that the then Labour Government created in 1998 and abolished in 2004?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The determination of the report cards is within Ofsted’s remit. It has launched its consultation. The right hon. Gentleman is invited to contribute to the consultation, and I encourage anyone within his local area to do so, too. We are open to feedback. In terms of the retro question, we are very much looking forward to how these reforms can support the Department for Education in its work to target reform where we know it is needed. Our system is not working well, and we know it needs to change. That is why we have introduced the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It is why we are designing a school system that supports and challenges every school to deliver for every child. Between our reforms and those that Ofsted is consulting on—we welcome feedback and are open to it—we are confident that together we can deliver those high and rising standards for every child.

[Gurinder Singh Josan (Smethwick) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement and refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have had various roles in voluntary governance, including as chair of a multi-academy trust, as well as in maintained schools, pupil referral units, a faith school and a free school—the list is quite comprehensive—and I would just comment that the argument about pushing schools into one direction or another, whether wholly maintained or wholly academised, is bogus. I congratulate the Minister on focusing on the provisions of the statement about accountability and improvement and not getting diverted by that argument. I have participated in many Ofsted inspections over the years as part of my voluntary governance roles and I can attest to the hard work of all staff across all our schools and academies, as well as the stress that often accompanies—

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend for his service, which is hugely important. We often do not recognise enough the work that governors undertake and the important role they play in our school system. We thank all school governors for their service and encourage more people to sign up.

In response to my hon. Friend’s initial comment, he may be interested to know that between January 2022 and December 2024, 40% of schools in a category of concern took over a year to convert to sponsored academies. That is too long. We need to intervene more quickly, which is why we will use the opportunity of a more diagnostic Ofsted report card to identify where improvements need to happen so that we can get in there with RISE teams much earlier—as soon as a school has failed its inspection—and no longer focus solely on structural intervention, as he said, but on however school improvement can be best undertaken.

[Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

One of the most common areas of casework in Mid Dorset and North Poole involves children with special needs. Parents often cite awful experiences of children being manipulated out of school by those schools being made truly hostile places for them and by failures, often at a trust level, to provide even low-cost or no-cost changes, with parents completely ignored in the process. I am interested in understanding why the Minister has not included full accountability and judgments at multi-academy trust level in the reforms, because parents simply have nowhere to go when they need to complain and the problem is with the trust.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight the issue and what she says sounds very concerning. We are looking at multi-academy trust level accountability and how parents can engage in the relationship with schools, ensuring that the proper lines of accountability are available. I will continue to keep that under review and will report on it in due course.

[Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)]

Like the Minister, I am the product of a state school in the north-east, and I am tremendously proud of that fact. During the election, many teachers in Throckley, Hexham, Ponteland, Prudhoe and elsewhere told me on the doorstep that they felt the one-word judgment did not allow sufficient room for subtlety and nuance in the evaluation of schools, and parents felt the same. Will the Minister assure me that this is simply the first step in delivering the high and rising standards that we all need and expect for children across the country?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend spoke to my heart as he referenced areas of his constituency that I represented in this place for 14 years from 2010. He went to an excellent school in the neighbouring constituency. He is right that this really is the first step on the journey of improving our schools and making sure that every child has the best start in life and the best education possible.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is quite right that we measure the performance of schools since we spend billions of pounds on them every year and they affect the life chances of millions of children across the country. Will the Minister explain why she is introducing these new measures to improve standards in schools at the same time as jettisoning the academy system, which was designed to improve standards and disseminate changes to improve schools? What are the implications for individual schools in gathering, holding and presenting the data required to give the information for the nine sections and five different levels? How will she make all that comprehensible to parents?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s three questions in reverse order. On the first, I think parents are perfectly capable of understanding a more complex report card than one word. I also disagree with his characterisation of the changes. We are very much about harnessing all the great things that academies have achieved, including the great reforms, improvements and innovations that they have pioneered. We want to spread that right across our school system. The purpose of the report cards is to shine a light on all that great practice so that it can be spread more widely, and to shine a particular spotlight on where improvement is needed, to deliver it as quickly as possible. How Ofsted will deliver is a matter for Ofsted, and if he wishes to respond to its consultation, I am sure his views would be welcome.

[Yuan Yang (Earley and Woodley) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her remarks, particularly about the funding for regional improvement teams in schools. Two weeks ago, my constituents in Shinfield and Whitley received the devastating news that their local secondary school, Oakbank, had received its worst ever Ofsted report. Parents and former staff at that school have asked me how the Anthem schools trust, which has failed not just schools in my constituency but several others in recent years, can be held to account. Will the Minister set out how the new accountability framework will put in place safeguards against failing multi-academy trusts?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns. I do not know the details of the specific school, but a school judged by Ofsted to require special measures will still receive structural intervention. If it is a maintained school, it will become an academy. If it is already an academy, which I believe this school is, it will be transferred to a new and stronger trust. In the shorter term, while the RISE teams are focusing on stuck schools and on building their capacity, a school requiring significant improvement will, by default, continue to receive structural intervention. We propose that from September 2026 a school in that category will receive mandatory targeted intervention from RISE. Schools will be supported much more quickly to drive those improved outcomes for children, without having to wait for structural intervention.

[Monica Harding (Esher and Walton) (LD)]

My teachers in Esher and Walton have greeted today’s announcement with a degree of cynicism, which is to be expected after feeling ignored for the last 10 years. One wrote to me saying, “Same system, different name.” Another said, “Same old thing, just different words.” Will the Minister reassure them that this is not just business as usual? Might she expand on the levels of collaboration that she talked of?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I encourage the teachers mentioned by the hon. Lady to feed into the consultation. Let me allay some of their concerns. Although how it conducts its consultations and reports on its inspections is for Ofsted, as a Department we are very focused on creating a self-improving system of collaboration, using the new report cards to identify exemplary practice and share that more widely. That will identify where support is required and encourage schools to work in collaboratively to deliver it. RISE teams will bolster that targeted approach, particularly for stuck schools, which we know have been ignored for far too long. I hope that the teachers she referenced will feel more confident about the system, and I encourage them to respond to the consultation.

[Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)]

The laser focus on stuck schools will be incredibly important for the life chances of children who have been failed for too long. I am pleased that the Government are putting their money where their mouth is, with up to £100,000 for each school. Ofsted research makes the point that in some unstuck schools, the role of MATs in raising expectations and developing curriculum subject expertise has been critical, but in others that have remained stuck, the MATs have not been effective and are not providing the right quality support. Will the Minister say more about how RISE teams can work with MATs to improve the support that they offer?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Children get only one childhood, so it matters deeply that they get to go to a great school while they are still children, which is why we are determined to deliver faster improvement to the schools that need it. While academisation has been successful in many places, it can be a slow process, and not all schools can be matched up with strong trusts, which is why we will utilise the RISE teams to support schools to work together, drive improvement and create that whole-system reform that we know children need to see.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her answers and welcome the Government’s decision to uplift accountability and transparency in the schooling sector. Could the Minister clarify what help and support will be offered to struggling schools to ensure that this accountability also brings about the improvements that are undoubtedly and clearly essential? Further to the question my right hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) asked on academy sector education, has the Minister had any discussions with her counterparts in Northern Ireland on the impact of decisions made in Westminster on the academy sector back home?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for welcoming today’s statement. We are very much strengthening the tools we can use for faster and more effective school improvement with the introduction of the new RISE teams. In addition, as he points out, the greater transparency and diagnostic approach of Ofsted reports will enable us to identify both where great practice is and where there is room for improvement. I will take away his question about the impact on other parts of the UK.

[Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)]

Parents of SEND children in Gloucester will welcome today’s statement and the words of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on SEND and inclusion in our schools. Will the Minister confirm that the measures set out by this Labour Government will drive up standards for all children in Gloucester, and will she meet me and parents in my city, who have for years battled the broken system left behind by the previous Conservative Government?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. We wish to see a change in the drive towards an inclusive mainstream as part of this new Ofsted accountability system, and the changes in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bills will obviously support those endeavours. The curriculum and assessment review will also look at how barriers to inclusion can be removed in the curriculum and assessment system, and at how we can get high standards and expectations of great progress for all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities.

[Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)]

I associate myself with the Minister’s earlier comments about the tragic events in Sheffield, where another young life has sadly been lost to knife crime.

Does the Minister agree that these landmark reforms will not only drive high and rising standards, but help in the recruitment and retention of teachers? Will she also confirm that we will engage fully with parents and teachers on the development of plans for school report cards?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely agree. High-quality teaching is the most important in-school factor for improving outcomes for children. We absolutely need to drive recruitment, but our greatest tool for recruitment is retention—we need to hold on to the fantastic teachers who are in our schools. A more holistic and broader picture of schools will shine a light on the great practice going on, the hard work and the context in which schools operate, and will deliver on the desire, which I know every teacher has, to deliver high and rising standards for the children in their care.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

I have worked closely with schools in some of the most disadvantaged parts of our country, and I have seen academy trust after academy trust fail to turn around schools in some of the most challenging circumstances, leaving behind some of our most disadvantaged learners. I welcome the Government’s commitment to support the turnaround with cash, with £100,000 being made available as compared with the £6,000 that was previously provided. Does that not show the difference in the importance placed by Labour on turning around failing schools compared with the Tories?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. We absolutely need to be laser-focused on schools that have consistently underperformed but have not received the support, help or intervention they need to succeed. We will be laser-focused on supporting those schools to achieve the outcomes that we know they want to achieve for their children but just need the support to do so.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s commitment to overhauling Ofsted, and particularly the commitment to ensuring that SEND is at the heart of every school, because a truly outstanding school is one that has inclusivity at the heart of everything it does. Will the Minister commit to listening, through the consultation, to the parents and carers of SEND kids, to ensure that they are at the heart of the reforms the Government are delivering?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend advocates very powerfully for the families in his area who have been struggling with a SEND system that is clearly in need of reform. The changes that Ofsted and the Department are proposing are designed to create a more inclusive and effective schools system for all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. Indeed, we will continue to listen to their voices as we plan our reforms.

[Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for her statement. I recently met headteachers in my community who detailed the challenges they face: SEND, recruitment and retention, and persistent absence. Will the Minister set out how the Government’s reforms will start to remedy those issues and break down the barriers to opportunity for children and young people in my constituency? Does she agree that the reforms are an important step in fixing the damage inflicted on our education system by the Conservative party over the past 14 years?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I absolutely recognise the challenges that my hon. Friend sets out. Many schools right across the system, whether local authority maintained or academies, face similar challenges. The report card system will be a really important reflection of a whole school’s experience, and will laser-focus on areas such as attendance and inclusion, creating toolkits to enable schools to know the standards they need to reach, but also enabling schools to work together collaboratively, supporting one another to achieve those outcomes for children. We are not in the game of punishing schools; we are in the game of supporting them to bring about the change that we know they want to see.

[Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I have visited more than a dozen schools in my constituency since being elected, and I am always overwhelmed by the passion of the teachers who have to work in really trying circumstances. They are often very under-resourced to deal with children who are ill-prepared for school and a growing caseload of children with special educational needs, so I really welcome the additional investment with the RISE teams. As the Minister will know, Conservative Members are fond of quoting our improvement in the PISA rankings, which is the legacy of the generation who experienced Sure Start—where children had a Sure Start centre nearby, that generation achieved 0.8 grades higher at GCSE. What will the Government do to ensure that we have more children coming to school who are prepared for school?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend has very much diagnosed the challenge. We have a persistently and stubbornly high disadvantage gap, where we know that children are leaving primary school without the fundamentals of reading, writing and maths. That goes on to impact their outcomes in secondary school, but we know that starts at the very earliest stage. That is why we are investing in the early years, speech and language therapy, and nursery provision. We are absolutely determined to improve the early learning development goal outcomes for children and give every child the best start in life.

[Anneliese Midgley (Knowsley) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement, but in my constituency GCSE results are among the lowest in the country and a quarter of pupils are classed as persistently absent. What message does the Minister have for children, parents and teachers about plans to drive high and rising standards to provide more and better opportunities in my constituency?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is a powerful advocate for the children in her area, and she is absolutely right to champion better outcomes. We know that the journey towards not achieving the grades that children should achieve starts at the earliest stage, which is why, as I have said, we are investing in the early years. The Ofsted report cards will shine a light on the issue of attendance—we know that children cannot get a great education if they are not at school to get it, and attendance must be a priority for schools—but we recognise the challenges, so we want to support schools to be able to achieve better attendance figures, and we will do so by diagnosing those challenges and putting in place the self-supporting schools system that can drive those better outcomes.

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

The Harris Federation has just revealed that its chief executive’s pay is in excess of half a million pounds a year. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need much more transparency and accountability when it comes to the excessive pay of some multi-academy trust leaders?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, and I will take it away and look at it.

[David Baines (St Helens North) (Lab)]

Under the last Government, most schools in my constituency suffered real-terms funding cuts and child poverty increased by more than 50%. Reform of the inspection system is needed and is welcome, but does the Minister agree that the key to children doing well and good outcomes being measured is investment and support for the families of children from pre-birth onwards, as well as fair funding for all our schools?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He has not only diagnosed the problem, but recommended a solution. We have established a child poverty taskforce, chaired by the Secretary of State for Education along with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to take a fundamental look at the levers that we have in Government to support children so that they no longer grow up in poverty, which we know is affecting their outcomes both in education and in life.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Seventh sitting)

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

That is an incredibly helpful point, because it leads me to the point that the word “branded” here is being used in a very specific way, which is not a particularly natural meaning. Anything specific or anything where there is only a couple of shops that sell it will count as branded. For example, I think of the rugby jumper that I used to wear when I was doing rugby league in Huddersfield in the 1990s. It was a red jumper with a blue stripe. If it was freezing cold and snowing, I could reverse it. That jumper was branded. It did not have any brand on it—it was not sportswear—but anything like that is captured in the provision. I also remember that when I was at school, in summer we had very unbranded clothing. The school said, “You can have a black T-shirt.” What happened? Everyone had a black Nike or Adidas T-shirt, so more expensive stuff fills the space.

Let us take a worked example and think about the primary school that my children go to, which is typical. They have a jumper and a tie in the winter. My daughter has a summer dress. They have a PE hoodie, a PE T-shirt and a plastic book bag, so they are a couple of items over the limit. Our children are at a really typical state primary, so which of those items do Ministers want them to drop?

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is up to the school.

[Neil O'Brien]

If they drop the book bag, other bags will likely be more expensive. My kids are quite young, so they are not very brand-aware, but we will end up with a request for a branded bag and something more expensive. [Interruption.]

Education

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Thursday 30th January 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the Public Bill Committee debate on Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill on 23 January 2025.

[Catherine McKinnell]

On reunification specifically, “Working together to safeguard children 2023” was updated to ask local authorities to consider

“whether family group decision-making would support the child’s transition home from care, and the role the family network could play in supporting this.”

It made it clear that family group decision making cannot be conducted before a child becomes looked after, but that it should still be considered as an option later.

[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2025; c. 126.]

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

[Catherine McKinnell]

On reunification specifically, “Working together to safeguard children 2023” was updated to ask local authorities to consider

“whether family group decision-making would support the child’s transition home from care, and the role the family network could play in supporting this.”

It made it clear that if family group decision making cannot be conducted before a child becomes looked after, it should still be considered as an option later.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fifth sitting)

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. The Liberal Democrats welcome the new requirements on local authorities in the clause to assess whether certain care leavers aged under 25 require the provision of staying close support. The charity Become, which supports care-experienced children, has found that care-experienced young people are nine times more likely to experience homelessness than other young people and that homelessness rates for care leavers have increased by 54% in the last five years. This is a really important clause.

Amendment 40 deals with the definition of staying close support. It uses the existing definition of the services, which should be set out in the local offer from local authorities. Become’s care advice line has found that care leavers are often unaware of the financial support available from the local authority, such as council tax discounts, higher education bursaries and other benefits. That can lead them to face unnecessary financial hardship. That is the reason for the financial support part of the amendment.

More generally, financial literacy can have a huge negative impact on care leavers, who are more likely to live independently from an earlier age than their peers—they are not necessarily living with parents or guardians. We would really like to see local authorities lay out that financial literacy support to help them understand what is available to them.

Amendment 41 would add information about supported lodgings to the list of available support services. Supported lodgings are a family-based provision within a broader category of supported accommodation. A young person aged 16 to 23 lives in a room within their supporting lodgings, which are the home of a host, who is tasked with supporting the young person as they go towards adulthood and independence, giving them practical help and teaching them important life skills such as financial literacy, budgeting and cooking. Requiring local authorities to signpost care leavers to any of the supported lodging provisions in their area could make a real difference to those young people and their lives, so I would really appreciate support for the amendment.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I will speak to amendments 23, 40 and 41 and to clause 7.

Amendment 23 was tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, and I thank them for it. The amendment draws attention to an important principle that must run through the whole approach that local authorities take to listening and responding to the wishes and feelings of their care leavers. When a local authority is assessing what staying close support should be provided to a young person, it should have regard to their wishes, which is why we intend to publish statutory guidance that will draw on established good practice that we want all local authorities to consider. It will cover how that will work, with interconnecting duties, especially the duty to prepare a pathway plan and keep it under a review. In developing and maintaining the plan and support arrangements, there is a requirement for the care leaver’s wishes to be considered.

In response to the specific questions raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, as I said, pathway planning is already a statutory requirement to eligible care leavers, so the statutory guidance will set out how and when care leavers should be assessed based on their own needs and using the current duties to support care leavers with reference to a trusted individual. Those individuals will often already be known to the young person, such as a former children’s home staff member, and that will clearly be set out in the statutory guidance. We will base that on the best practice that we see already in train.

On the lifelong links, we are currently funding 50 family finding, befriending and mentoring programmes, which are being delivered by 45 local authorities. The programmes will help children in care and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives, improving their sense of identity and community and creating and sustaining consistent, stable and loving relationships. I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman made. The Department for Education has commissioned an independent evaluation of the family finding, befriending and mentoring programme, which will inform decisions about the future of the programme and how it will work.

On amendment 40, each care leaver will have their own levels of need and support. Local authorities have a duty to assess the needs of certain care leavers and prepare, create and maintain a pathway for and with them. Statutory guidance already makes it clear that the pathway planning process must address a young person’s financial needs and independent living skills. Where eligible, they will be able to have access to financial support and benefits as well as support to manage those benefits and allowances themselves. That will be strengthened by the support made available through clause 7, including advice, information and representation, to find and keep suitable accommodation, given that budgeting and financial management issues can be a significant barrier to maintaining tenancies for many care leavers. That will include advice and guidance to local authorities to aid in the set-up and delivery, building on best practice of how current grant-funded local authorities are already offering support to access financial services and financial literacy skills for their care leavers.

To respond to amendment 41, we know that some care leavers may not feel ready to live independently straight away; that is where supported lodgings can offer an important suitable alternative. They are an excellent way for individuals with appropriate training to offer a room to a young person leaving care and a way for that young person to get the practical and emotional support to help them to develop the skills they need for independent living. We will continue to encourage the use of supported lodgings for care leavers where it is in the best interests of the young person.

However, we do not feel that amendment 41 is needed. Clause 7(4)(a) specifies that staying close support includes help for eligible care leavers

“to find and keep suitable accommodation”.

That will include support to find and keep supported lodgings where the young person and the local authority consider it appropriate. We will make that and other suitable options absolutely clear in statutory guidance, building on the best practice from the current staying close programme.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is good to hear that supported lodgings will be referred to in statutory guidance. I heard from the charity Home for Good, which is involved in setting up those networks of local authorities that provide supported lodgings, that in some local authorities money for supported lodgings cannot be found, because the local authority thinks that fostering money cannot be used for supported lodging and that it cannot use staying close support. Real clarity that staying close support funding can be used for supported lodgings is important to make this option work.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the hon. Lady’s interest in this matter. We will produce the statutory guidance to make all this absolutely clear.

Before I come to clause 7 stand part, I want to respond to an additional question from the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston that I did not answer earlier. He asked about digital options and, as someone standing here using an iPad, I recognise the importance of that, particularly for young people. The local authorities already work with a range of digital options to connect with their care leavers, and we would certainly expect that to continue, and expect good practice to continue being developed and to be set out in the statutory guidance.

Turning to clause stand part, clause 7 requires each local authority to consider whether the welfare of former relevant children up to the age of 25 requires staying close support. Where this support is identified as being required, the authority must provide staying close support of whatever kind the authority considers appropriate, having regard to the extent to which that person’s welfare requires it.

Staying close support is to be provided for the purpose of helping the young person to find and keep suitable accommodation and to access services relating to health and wellbeing, relationships, education and training, employment and participating in society. This support can take the form of the provision of advice, information and representation, and aims to help to build the confidence and skills that care leavers need to be able to live independently.

The new duties placed on local authorities by this clause will not operate in isolation. They will be part of the existing legislative framework, which sets out the duties that every local authority already owes to its former children in care aged 18 to 25. This clause enhances and expands the arrangements for those children by supporting them to find long-term stable accommodation and access to essential wraparound services. The new statutory guidance will set out what the new requirements mean for local authorities and will draw on established good practice—for example, the role of a trusted person to offer practical and emotional support to care leavers.

On that basis, I hope I can rely on the Committee’s support for clause 7.

[Neil O’Brien]

I would like to push amendment 23 to a vote.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 40—National offer for care leavers—

‘In the Children and Social Work Act 2017, after section 2 insert—

“2A National offer for care leavers

(1) The Secretary of State for Education must publish information about services which care leavers in all areas of England should be able to access to assist them in adulthood and independent living or in preparing for adulthood and independent living.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), services which may assist care leavers in adulthood and independent living or in preparing for adulthood and independent living include services relating to—

(a) health and well-being;

(b) relationships;

(c) education and training;

(d) employment;

(e) accommodation;

(f) participation in society.

(3) Information published by the Secretary of State under this section is to be known as the ‘National Offer for Care Leavers’.

(4) The Secretary of State must update the National Offer for Care Leavers from time to time.

(5) Before publishing or updating the National Offer for Care Leavers the Secretary of State must consult with relevant persons about which services may assist care leavers in adulthood and independent living or in preparing for adulthood and independent living.

(6) In this section—

‘care leavers’ means—

(a) eligible children within the meaning given by paragraph 19B of Schedule 2 to the Children Act 1989;

(b) relevant children within the meaning given by section 23A(2) of that Act;

(c) persons aged under 25 who are former relevant children within the meaning given by section 23C(1) of that Act;

(d) persons qualifying for advice and assistance within the meaning given by section 24 of that Act;

‘relevant persons’ means—

(a) such care leavers as appear to the Secretary of State to be representative of care leavers in England; and

(b) other Ministers of State who have a role in arranging services that may assist care leavers in or preparing for independent living.”’

This new clause would introduce a new requirement on the Secretary of State for Education to publish a national offer detailing what support care leavers are entitled to claim by expanding the provisions in the Children and Social Work Act 2017 which require local authorities to produce a “Local offer”.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will speak to clause 8. Expert reviews have shown that many care leavers face barriers to securing and maintaining affordable housing. Too many young people end up in crisis and experiencing homelessness shortly after leaving care. Although housing and children’s services departments are encouraged in current guidance to work together to achieve the common aim of planning and providing appropriate accommodation and support for care leavers, that is not happening consistently in practice.

To enable better joined-up planning and support for care leavers, the clause will require local authorities to publish their plans, setting out how they will ensure a planned and supportive transition between care and independent living for all care leavers. Our aim is for local authorities to co-ordinate and plan the sufficiency of care leaver accommodation, to plan for the right to accommodation for each individual, and to make early, clear planning decisions that are right for each care leaver’s needs.

The clause specifies that the information that the local authority is required to publish includes information about its arrangements for enabling it to anticipate the future needs of care leavers; for co-operating with local housing authorities in assisting former relevant children under the age of 25 to find and keep suitable accommodation; for providing assistance to former relevant children under the age of 25 who are at risk of being homeless, or who are released from detention, to find and keep suitable accommodation; and for assisting former relevant children aged under 25 to access the services they need.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

The question about securing and keeping accommodation is incredibly important for care leavers; it is closely linked to what the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire was saying about financial capacity. What are the Minister’s thoughts on what the default position should be for care leavers in receipt of universal credit? Should there be automatic rent payments from universal credit, or should it be for the individual to manage? Obviously that can change in individual cases, but what should be the default and what discussions has she had with the Department for Work and Pensions?

[Catherine McKinnell]

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, we work on a cross-Government basis. We have regular conversations with colleagues in various Departments to ensure that the offer we provide to care leavers will give them the best chance to live independently and that the approach of other Departments to these matters complements and co-operates with what this legislation is intended to achieve.

The right hon. Gentleman raises a specific and quite technical question that relates to the work of the Department for Work and Pensions. As I will come on to, we are working hard to re-establish the ministerial working group to support these young people. I am certain that this matter can be carefully considered as part of that work, so I will take it away and feed it on to colleagues. Given the importance of the clause and the changes it will bring to how local authorities work with children leaving care or young people under the age of 25 who have been in care, I urge the Committee to support it.

I turn to new clause 40, tabled by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, who I believe is not present today.

[The Chair]

I am told that she is unwell.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Do I still respond to the clause?

[The Chair]

It is within the scope of this debate, so the Minister may respond if she wishes to.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am happy to respond to new clause 40, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a national offer for care leavers, mirroring the requirement on local authorities to publish their local offer. There are already examples of additional support provided for care leavers from central Government that complement the support provided by local authorities. Care leavers may, for example, be entitled to a £3,000 bursary if they start an apprenticeship and may be entitled to the higher one-bedroom rate of housing support from universal credit.

We have re-established the care leaver ministerial board, now co-chaired by the Secretary of State for Education and the Deputy Prime Minister. It comprises Ministers from 11 other Departments to consider what further help could be provided to improve outcomes for this vulnerable group of young people.

[Damian Hinds]

I wonder whether that reconstituted group will pay particular attention to the role of enlightened employers. Bearing in mind the immense breadth of unique life experiences that many people with care experience bring to a business—it will benefit the young person as well as the business—will employers take an extra chance on a care leaver and give them that opportunity? Being in work and having a regular wage opens up so much else in life.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point and advocates powerfully for this vulnerable group of young people. There will indeed be representation on the ministerial group from various Government Departments, including the Minister for business—[Interruption.]

[The Chair]

Order.

[Catherine McKinnell]

There will be a Minister from the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology. That area will form part of the discussions, I am sure, as the purpose of the group is to give the best chance to care leavers—this very vulnerable group of young people—and ensure that we as a Government are working collaboratively to make that effective.

We recognise how important it is that care leavers have clear information about the help and support they are entitled to, both from their local authority and central Government Department. We are therefore reviewing our published information to ensure that it is accessible and clear and that care leavers can quickly and easily understand and access all the support they are entitled to. Once that review has concluded, we will consider how best to publish this information. Therefore, I ask for the new clause to be withdrawn and urge the Committee to support clause 8.

[Neil O’Brien]

This is a good and sensible clause, and the Opposition support its inclusion in the Bill. I would note that although all these clauses are good, they come with an administrative cost.

We have already discussed the importance of ensuring that the measures are properly funded, but I want to press the Minister for a few more insights on clause 8. There is a list of details about the local offer—that it must be published, must anticipate the needs of care leavers—and it refers to how they will co-operate with housing authorities and provide accommodation for those under 25. This is all good stuff.

The discussion that we have just had prefigured the question that I wanted to ask, which is about co-operation with national bodies. The clause is quite focused on co-operation between local bodies and drawing up a clear offer. That is a good thing—although, obviously, some of those housing associations are quite national bodies these days.

In the “Keeping children safe, helping families thrive” policy paper published a while back, the Government set out an intention to extend corporate parenting responsibilities to Government Departments and other public bodies, with a list of corporate parents named in legislation following agreement from other Government Departments. When we were in government, we also said that we intended to legislate to extend corporate parenting responsibilities more broadly, so I wondered about that connection up to the national level. We have already had one excellent and very canny policy idea from my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire about setting the default for care leavers when it comes to how their housing payments are made. The Minister raised a good point about bursaries and making sure that care leavers are clear about what is available to them on that front. However, there is a whole host of other opportunities to write in to some of these—

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stringer, and it is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen, who is a powerful champion for care-experienced people in speaking from his own personal experience—and the fact that he is my office room- mate helps.

I want care leavers to reach their potential and to be active members of society in Bournemouth and Britain. I want them to have the same opportunities in life as other young adults. As young people in care approach adulthood, they need to be supported to think about and plan their future—to think about things such as where they will live and what support they may need to find accommodation, employment and take part in their communities.

But as my hon. Friend just explained, so many care-experienced people are held back. Some of the statistics are truly startling and appalling. The National Audit Office report entitled “Care leavers’ transition to adulthood” identified poorer life outcomes for care leavers as a “longstanding problem” with a likely high public cost, including in mental health, employment, education, policing and justice services. The Department for Education’s 2016 policy paper entitled “Keep On Caring” said that care leavers generally experience worse outcomes than their peers across a number of areas.

Here are the statistics. It is estimated that 26% of the homeless population have care experience; 24% of the prison population in England have spent time in care; 41% of 19 to 21-year-old care leavers are not in education, employment or training, compared with 12% of all other young people in the same age group; and adults who had spent time in care between 1971 and 2001 were 70% more likely to die prematurely than those who had not. It is no wonder that the independent review of children’s social care described the disadvantage faced by the care-experienced community as

“the civil rights issue of our time.”

In reading those statistics, and in reading that report again, I am struck by just how much of a privilege and an honour it is to be in this Committee contributing to the work of the Bill so early in this Parliament. That is why I particularly welcome clause 8, which is a care leaver-led change that responds directly to the voices of care-experienced people and care leavers.

While we are talking about clause 8, I want to dwell briefly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen did, on the good practice that exists in local government, particularly in my patch of Bournemouth, where Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council has done a couple of things to respond to, work alongside, and listen to care leavers and care-experienced people. That includes the 333 care leavers hub in Bournemouth, which is a safe space for care leavers to visit and relax, and which focuses on wellbeing and learning by helping to teach people practical skills from cooking to budgeting. Care-experienced young people also take part in the recruitment of social workers, sitting on interview panels to make sure that potential social workers have the necessary skills to support care-experienced people.

There is good practice in our country, but that good practice is not consistent across the country. I therefore welcome the efforts in this clause—indeed, in much of the Bill—to make sure that we have that consistency. Requiring the publication of information will mean that care leavers know what services they can access, and, critically, that professionals feel supported to advise on and signpost offers. When professionals have huge demands on their time, and face significant struggles in delivering support, having that additional support available to them will be critical.

I therefore commend this clause, because it is a care leaver-centred approach, a pragmatic approach, and, frankly, a much-needed approach.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen for his powerful and personal testimony, and for his clear commitment to these issues. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for his clear and important contribution.

My hon. Friends have set out the reasons why we are providing that continuity of support when care leavers reach the age of 18, through the Staying Put programme, and why we are now legislating to add Staying Close to the duties of local authorities. It is to provide that care to leavers; to help them to find suitable accommodation and access services, including those relating to health and wellbeing support; and to help them develop and build their confidence and their skills as they get used to living independently. It is also why we are investing in family-finding, mentoring and befriending programmes to help care leavers to develop those strong social networks, which they can then turn to when they need advice and support.

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.

On the question raised by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, more than 550 businesses have signed the care leaver covenant, offering care leavers a job and other opportunities, and we continue to deliver the civil service care leavers internship scheme, which has resulted in more than 1,000 care leavers being offered paid jobs across Government. We have a real commitment to improving education outcomes for children in care, which will help to support them into adulthood and reduce the likelihood of them not being in education, employment or training. We will continue to support that.

The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asked how the measure in this clause interacts with national offers. The Government set out guidance for local authorities on the duties and entitlements for care leavers, and we are working to develop the detail of those proposals to make sure that local authorities work together with the Government to improve support for care leavers. With specific reference to higher education, we already have a number of duties to support eligible care leavers in higher education. It will certainly be part of the expectation of the local offer that those options are open to care leavers. It is an important aspect to support.

In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen, we absolutely agree about bringing the good practice of local authorities into the local offer. We work closely with a number of good local authorities, and there is a lot of really good practice around. The Government intend to bring those authorities into our work so that we have updated guidance to ensure that best practice is spread as far, wide and consistently as possible. With that, I urge the Committee to support clause stand part.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9

Accommodation of looked after children: regional co-operation arrangements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I look forward to working through the measures in this landmark Bill with all Members, as has been the spirit so far.

The children’s social care market is not working effectively. The Competition and Markets Authority and the independent review of children’s social care recommended a regional approach to planning and commissioning children’s care places. My Department will support local authorities to increase the number of regional care co-operatives over time. As Members will have noted, the clause refers to those as “regional co-operation arrangements”. As a last resort, the legislation will give the Secretary of State the power to direct local authorities to establish regional co-operation arrangements.

Where a direction is in place, regions will be required to analyse future accommodation needs for children, publish sufficiency strategies, commission care places for children, recruit and support foster parents, and develop or facilitate the development of new provision to accommodate children. We expect regional care co-operatives to gain economies of scale and to harness the collective buying power of individual local authorities. I hope that the Committee will agree that this clause should stand part of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[David Taylor (Hemel Hempstead) (Lab)]

17. What steps she is taking to improve SEND services.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

This topic is of interest to many colleagues across the House. The previous Conservative Education Secretary labelled the special educational needs and disabilities system that she left behind as “lose, lose, lose”, and the shadow Minister said that the previous Government should “hang their heads” in shame over their record. Just last week, a Schools Minister of 10 years said that they had “let down” thousands of children. We agree wholeheartedly. That is the system we inherited, but there is light at the end of the tunnel as this Labour Government work hard to reform and improve the system.

[Edward Morello]

Some 52% of students at Dorset Studio school in my constituency have special educational needs, which is well above the national average, and 11% are in receipt of education, health and care plans. A funding agreement between the Treasury and the Department for Education in February 2023 to upgrade the school’s facilities, including a new school hall, a canteen and specialist teaching facilities, aimed to bring the school up to purpose, yet there has been no progress since May 2024. Will the Minister outline what steps the Department will take to get the ball rolling? If she does not know, will she please meet me so that we can get things started as soon as possible?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s question and his concern about making advancements. Improving capital provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities is a priority for this Government, which is why we have allocated £740 million of additional investment to create those additional places in mainstream and special schools. I am more than happy to look at the case he raises—indeed, it might also be for the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), to look at.

[Olly Glover]

In Oxfordshire, the high needs of our accumulated deficit is expected to rise to £77.1 million by the end of 2025, and across England it is expected to rise to nearly £6 billion in the same period. Does the Minister agree that, in the long term, a shift towards inclusive education, early intervention and enhanced support in mainstream schools is essential to create a sustainable and effective system that meets the needs of all children and young people, and will she commit to delivering it?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman asks an important question, and we absolutely need to see a more inclusive mainstream system with an education, health and care plan process that gets children with special educational needs and disabilities the support they need. By doing so, we will improve the mainstream inclusivity of our schools. As I have outlined, we have allocated capital funding for that, but we are looking at reforms on a range of levels to ensure that children can be educated in their local community as far as is possible.

[Lewis Cocking]

I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Since I was elected, I have heard countless times from parents across Broxbourne that the special educational needs system is too difficult to navigate and all too often just does not work. What action is the Minister taking to improve the confidence of parents in the SEN system?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I recognise the story that the hon. Gentleman tells. Indeed, it is told by many families up and down the country. He should recognise that this legacy was left by the last Conservative Government for many families and many children, letting them down. We are working incredibly hard to reform our system with a curriculum and assessment review, with capital investment and by working with local authorities to improve the education, health and care plan process and the timeliness of assessments. We will continue to do that to clean up the mess.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I recognise what my hon. Friend says: she has inherited an appalling situation from the last Government. A recent Public Accounts Committee report bore that out. Can she give a little more information on how she will reduce the number of families not getting timely assessments? How will she address the doubling of demand for assessments?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the worrying findings of the Public Accounts Committee on the situation we are in. As she rightly identifies, it is our ambition that all children receive the right support to succeed, where possible within mainstream schools. That will need education, health and care plans to be processed more effectively, but also for mainstream schools in and of themselves to be supported to become inclusive, so that children and their families are not left waiting. That will help to reduce the cost of transport, because far too many children are being transported to other local authorities over great distance and time, as they cannot be educated locally. All these measures will not only drive down the challenges for families, but get much better outcomes for the money being spent.

[David Taylor]

At a recent surgery, a constituent told me that she had fought Tory-led Hertfordshire county council to carry out an EHCP assessment for her son for well over a year. Since it concluded, she has been forced to go to tribunal six times in the past two years. She informed me that she met resistance from the school and the council throughout. After years of neglect by not only the previous Conservative Government, but Conservative local councils, I welcome the steps the Government are taking to reform the SEND system. What assurances can the Minister give to my constituent and others in Hemel that EHCP assessments will be a priority?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am sorry to hear what my hon. Friend says about his constituent. We need to see education, health and care plan assessments progressed more promptly, and we need to ensure that plans are issued as quickly as possible, so that children can begin to benefit from the support. The Department is working closely with local authorities that have issues with timeliness. There is, without doubt, a lot more to do, but we are determined to improve the situation for children and their families.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

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

There are children with special educational needs and disabilities in every school across the country. Often, they face unacceptable barriers to participation, including school buildings that are not inclusive or fully accessible. What is the Minister doing, as part of the Government’s welcome commitment to inclusive mainstream schools, to ensure that all expenditure by the Department for Education on new school buildings and building refurbishments helps to make schools more inclusive?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. We want every teacher to be a SEND teacher and every school to be an inclusive school. We are making progress by investing £1 billion into SEND, and £740 million into creating more inclusive specialist places in mainstream schools and undertaking the adaptations that may be required in mainstream schools to make them more accessible.

[Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)]

9. What steps she is taking to strengthen safeguarding for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)]

11. What steps she is taking with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that SEND provision is adequately funded.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

Despite having to make tough decisions at the Budget to fix the foundations, key education priorities were protected. That is how we are able to provide a £1 billion high needs budget to help local authorities in schools support young people with SEND. As I said, we inherited a lose-lose-lose system, but we are determined to reform it and restore parents’ trust. The Secretary of State and I regularly meet Ministers from other Departments on special educational needs policies, to ensure that we take a whole of Government approach.

[Chris Coghlan]

Every headteacher in Dorking has told me that early intervention is vital for our special needs children. The London Business School told me that hiring people with special educational needs can be a source of competitive advantage for companies. Does the Minister agree that those principles could be the basis of a more financially sustainable and compassionate special educational needs system, and could avoid tragedies such as that of my constituent Jennifer Chalkley, who tragically lost her life aged 17 due to inadequate SEND provision?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his thoughtful question. We absolutely recognise the role of early years education in identifying needs and providing timely support. We have launched the new SEND assessment resources and child development training, and are identifying and supporting communication needs through the early language support for every child programme, along with NHS England. We will continue to work across Government to ensure that children with SEND get the right support at the right time. I am very sorry to hear the tragic circumstances of the case the hon. Gentleman outlined.

[Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. One of the biggest pressures on SEND funding in Stoke-on-Trent are the independent alternative providers that charge tens of thousands of pounds for single places, often with huge profit margins for themselves. We are subject to a safety valve arrangement. Could I therefore ask the Minister to meet a delegation of providers and teachers in Stoke-on-Trent, who are hungry for a new way of delivering SEND provision to ensure that our young children get the education they deserve?

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the challenges and pressures on the budget. I have identified the need to improve the situation with school transport by educating children locally and to provide more inclusive mainstream places. Where special school places are required, we need to ensure they are in the right place and available for the children who need them. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to hear the ideas of his friends.

[Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Reform)]

13. What steps she is taking to support free speech in educational settings.

--- Later in debate ---

[Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)]

15. What steps she is taking to ensure that disabled children have access to specialist teachers.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

High quality teaching is the most important in-school factor for improving outcomes for all children, including those with disabilities. That is why we are committed to delivering our first step of recruiting 6,500 new teachers to drive high and rising standards in our schools in both mainstream and specialist settings. We are doing that by bolstering pay and conditions, and restoring teaching as a respected, expert profession.

[Marsha De Cordova]

Research in June 2023 found that only 56% of teachers in mainstream schools felt confident about supporting children with a special educational need or disability. Today, that means many children, including in my constituency, are still missing out on learning and leaving school without the skills they need. Does the Minister agree that we need more specialist teachers, including those for multisensory purposes and for children with visual impairments, to ensure every child has the opportunity to fulfil their potential?

[Catherine McKinnell]

All teachers are teachers of special educational needs and disabilities. High quality teaching is central to ensuring that pupils with SEND are given the best possible opportunities to achieve in their education. To support all teachers, we are implementing high quality teacher training reforms, which begin with initial teacher training and continue through early career training to middle and senior leadership. These changes and reforms will ensure that teachers have the skills to support all pupils to succeed, including those with SEND.

[Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)]

On Friday, I had the opportunity to visit Manor Mead special school, where 60 members of staff look after the 92 pupils, many of whom have the most severe learning disabilities and autism. I was absolutely blown away by the care of the staff, and I was particularly grateful to be shown around by the adorable Luchia, one of the pupils. Will the Minister join me in thanking all our special school teachers for the amazing commitment they show, and on Manor Mead’s behalf, may I invite her to visit and see that work at first hand?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question and for celebrating teachers, particularly in our special schools but also throughout our school system, who work tirelessly day in, day out to support pupils, particularly those with special educational needs and disabilities, to succeed. I will certainly take away his very kind invitation.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

16. What assessment she has made of the potential impact of the National Insurance Contributions (Secondary Class 1 Contributions) Bill on the early years sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)]

T7. A severe shortage of specialist provision and a council in dire financial straits is leaving children with severe levels of need in my constituency making four-hour round trips to school and back every day, which is too much for many of them to cope with. What steps is the Minister taking, working with local Government to reduce such journey times for children who simply cannot cope with them?

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point. No child should struggle to get to school because of a lack of transport, and no child should have to travel great distances if there could be an inclusive and appropriate place for them at their local mainstream school. That is what we are determined to deliver for all children, both to ensure that they get the best opportunities and for their families.

[Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)]

T8.   Springfield Training provides excellent opportunities in Leeds South West and Morley for young people not in work, training or education to do fulfilling apprenticeships. I have seen that in action myself. What is the Department doing to support such organisations to get young people into work?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry; it is meant to be a topical question. Somebody have a quick go at answering.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Department for Education’s regional team engage with Wokingham regularly to discuss its SEND provision, provide support and constructive challenge, and share best practice. That has included providing a DFE SEND adviser to work with Wokingham and support the local authority in improving its services.

[Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)]

I recently visited Beaconsfield primary school in Ealing Southall, where teachers told me they have to fill in up to six forms to get disabled children the help they need. The time that takes is time they do not have, and they often need to choose which child to prioritise for support. How will the Minister reduce unnecessary paperwork and make it easier and more efficient for schools to ensure that every disabled child gets the educational support that they need?

--- Later in debate ---

[Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

Ensuring sensory and motor integration is crucial for a child’s development and learning, yet many services that do so are available only in the private sector. Will the Minister meet me to discuss how we can ensure that parents can access those crucial services?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I know that my hon. Friend is a strong advocate for children with special educational needs and disabilities in her constituency, and I am happy to meet her to discuss the issue.

[Nick Timothy (West Suffolk) (Con)]

The Children’s Commissioner says that the Government are

“legislating against the things we know work in schools”.

Katharine Birbalsingh says the schools Bill is “catastrophic”. Sir Dan Moynihan asks:

“Why are we doing this?”.

Why does the Education Secretary think that she knows more about education than the Children’s Commissioner, the head of the best school in the country, and the head of the best multi-academy trust?

[Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)]

Will the Minister meet me to discuss the SEND crisis in Suffolk Coastal? I have had over 100 families reach out to me since the general election to talk about their urgent needs and the crisis that they face because of Suffolk county council.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Yes.

[Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)]

In Devon, only 4.9% of EHCPs are received within 20 weeks. Conservative-run Devon county council has been utterly failing our children for the past 10 years. Will the Minister meet me to discuss what more we can do to support the council and turn things around for families, like that of my constituent James, who has had to wait two and a half years for the test that he needs to get an EHCP?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Local authorities have been significantly impacted by the increased demand for EHCPs, and by workforce capacity issues. We know that they need a more effective and efficient service delivery for schools and families, and we are working as hard as we can to support local authorities in meeting their requirements in a timely way.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Hayes]

In that case, can Mr O’Brien remind me of his constituency? [Interruption.] The acoustics in this room are quite bad, so I did not catch all of that, but I will write the constituency down next time; I apologise, Sir Christopher. I have listened carefully to what the Opposition spokesperson said, and take his point about wanting to assess the number of children who will no longer be in care as a result of these measures.

Let me broaden the debate out. A significant reason for care proceedings is that parents are experiencing mental ill health, so making progress on tackling some of the major reasons why parents in our society have mental ill health will bring significant benefits. In my experience, those reasons tend to fall into three categories: employment security, housing security and income security. The measures this Government are introducing on housing security will see a significant improvement in the families’ conditions, and the Government’s measures on employment security will see a significant improvement in families’ security. The measures to tackle the cost of living crisis that people are experiencing, such as the Bill’s provisions on free school breakfasts and the cap on uniform items, will help families with some of their cost of living concerns.

I do not agree with the amendments. The measures in the Bill are satisfactory. I will leave it there.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is an honour to serve under you as Chair, Sir Christopher, and to be a part of this thoughtful and considered Committee, which is taking this landmark legislation through Parliament. I thank hon. Members for the spirit in which they have discussed the safeguarding aspects of the Bill. I appreciate the support that has been expressed, and thank Members for their questions, concerns and amendments, which I will seek to address.

Amendments 36 and 37 stand in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham but were presented by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. I thank him for his support for the clause and acknowledgment that family group decision making is a family-led process. A family network is unique to every child, so we decided not to be prescriptive about who should attend the meetings. That will be assessed and determined by the local authority, which will consider who it is appropriate to invite, and we will publish updated statutory guidance to make it clear that the local authority should engage with the full scope of the family network. That should take place with a view to supporting the wellbeing and welfare of the child, because the child’s voice and views are an integral part of the family group decision-making process.

The process is, by its very nature, child-centric, and is designed with the best interests of the child in mind. The meeting facilitator will talk to families and the child about how best the child might be involved in the meeting. I recognise some of the points made about the extent to which the child should take part in the process, but the child’s participation will clearly depend on several factors, including their age and their level of understanding, and an independent advocate may also be used to help the child to express their views.

As has been set out by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, in some cases it may not be appropriate for the child to attend. However, there is time for the child to voice their experiences or concerns through the dedicated preparation time for those meetings. The facilitator will take further action where they think it may be required if they think that there are safeguarding concerns, and we are confident that local authorities will continue to be guided by what is in the best interests of the child. For the reasons that I have outlined, I ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press her amendments.

Amendment 18 has been tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. I thank him for the spirit in which he presented his amendments and put on record his concerns about the situation that children find themselves in and wanting the best outcome for them. The amendment relates to the 26-week rule for children subject to family court proceedings. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Children and Families Act 2014 introduced the 26-week limit on courts to complete care and supervision proceedings when they are considering whether a child should be taken into care or placed with an alternative carer. I reassure him that we prioritise reducing unnecessary delay in family courts and securing timely outcomes for children and families.

Clause 1 relates to a specific and critical point before court proceedings are initiated. It gives parents or those with parental responsibility the legal right to a family-led meeting when they are at the point of the risk of entering into care proceedings. There is robust evidence to show that strengthening the offer of family group decision making at that crucial stage will in fact reduce applications to the family courts and prevent children from entering the care system at all.

As much as we acknowledge the concern raised, we are confident that no provisions in clause 1 would result in an extension to the statutory 26-week limit for care proceedings, which starts when the application for a care or supervision order is made. We think it is right that families are given the time and support to form a family-led plan. By strengthening the offer of family group decision making for families on the edge of care, concerns about children’s safety and wellbeing can be addressed swiftly, with the support of skilled professionals, and avoid escalation into potentially lengthy care proceedings. We want to avoid missing those opportunities for children to remain living safely with their families, so the child’s welfare and best interests are very much at the heart of clause 1.

If the local authority believes that the child’s circumstances or welfare needs might have changed at any point during pre-proceedings and it would no longer be in their best interests to facilitate the meeting, the court proceedings can be initiated immediately. The local authority should always act in accordance with the child’s best interests. Indeed, that family work can continue throughout court proceedings being initiated, and family group decision making can also continue. For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston not to press his amendment.

Amendment 49 is in the name of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Clause 1 gives parents or those with parental responsibility the legal right to the family-led meeting at the specific and critical point, which I referenced, when they are at risk of entering into care proceedings. As I said, we have the clear evidence to show that involvement of the wider family network in planning and decision making at that pre-proceedings stage can divert children from care and keep more families together.

Although clause 1 focuses on the critical point at the edge of care, we already encourage local authorities to offer these meetings as early as possible and throughout the time that the child is receiving help, support and protection, including as a possible route to reunification with their birth parents or a family network where appropriate. We are clear in guidance and regulations that, where a child is returning home to their family after a period in care, local authorities should consider what help and support they will need to make reunification a success and set it out in writing. We will continue to promote the wider use of family group decision making, including by updating statutory guidance where appropriate and through best practice support. We believe that this legislation is a transformative step change that will be helpful in expanding these services for the benefit of children and families right across the country.

I turn to some of the specific questions that have been raised by Members, some of which I have addressed in my comments.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I may well be coming to the hon. Member’s question, if I can pre-empt her. If not, she is welcome to intervene again.

On reunification specifically, “Working together to safeguard children 2023” was updated to ask local authorities to consider

“whether family group decision-making would support the child’s transition home from care, and the role the family network could play in supporting this.”

It made it clear that family group decision making cannot be conducted before a child becomes looked after, but that it should still be considered as an option later. Family group decision making should be considered at all stages of a child’s journey in reunification with birth parents and the family network, wherever it is appropriate. Although the duty will make it mandatory to offer that family group decision making at the pre-proceeding stage, as I said, we will also be encouraging local authorities to offer it throughout the child’s journey and repeat it as necessary, because we encourage a family-first culture.

[Ellie Chowns]

Will the Minister respond directly to the thrust of amendment 49? The Bill is shifting from a position where the consideration of family group decision making is already encouraged to a statutory requirement before starting care proceedings. Amendment 49 asks for a mirroring of that at the potential end of care proceedings. Why does the Minister feel that it is important to move to a statutory footing at the start but not the end, particularly given the statistics that I have referenced on the frequency of breakdown? Would it not be entirely consistent for the Bill to specify this—bookending both ends of the care process?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I do think I have responded to the hon. Lady’s specific request, and explained why we are mandating and putting on to a statutory footing the requirement to offer family group decision making at this crucial point before care proceedings. We obviously encourage local authorities throughout their work with children in these circumstances to take a family-first approach and to offer family conferencing. Indeed, family group decision making can be used at any stage of a child’s journey through their relationship with the local authority. However, our decision to mandate it at this crucial point is very much based on the evidence that this reduces the number of children who end up going into care proceedings, and indeed into care.

A lot of issues were raised and I will do my very best to cover them. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raised private law proceedings. The Ministry of Justice offers a voucher scheme to provide a contribution of up to £500 towards the mediation costs for eligible cases, supporting people in resolving their family law disputes outside of court. Similarly to family group decision making, family mediation is a process that uses trained, independent mediators and helps families to sort arrangements out. I take on board the concerns he has raised that all children should be able to benefit from family group decision making where possible. On the impact assessment, as we said in the second evidence session on Tuesday, the Regulatory Policy Committee is considering the Bill’s impact assessments and we will publish them shortly and as soon as possible.

[Neil O'Brien]

I know that the Minister is trying to get us the impact assessments and is completely sincere about that. Will she undertake to get them while we are still in Committee?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I believe I can, but I will check and report back in this afternoon’s sitting. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s request.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Okay, so that does not matter.

Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2

Inclusion of childcare and education agencies in safeguarding arrangements

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

By strengthening the role of education in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, clause 2 recognises the crucial role that education and childcare play in keeping children safe. It places a duty on the local authority, police and health services, as safeguarding partners, to automatically include all education settings in their arrangements, and to work together to identify and respond to the needs of children in this area.

The clause includes the breadth of education settings, such as early years, academies, alternative provision and further education. This will ensure improved communication between a safeguarding partnership and education, better information sharing and understanding of child protection thresholds, and more opportunities to influence key decisions about how safeguarding is carried out in the local area.

Multiple national reviews have found that although some arrangements have worked hard to bring schools to the table, in too many places the contribution and voice of education are missing. Education and childcare settings should have a seat around the table in decision making about safeguarding, so we are mandating consistent and effective join-up between local authority, police and health services, and schools and other education and childcare settings and providers. We know that many education and childcare settings are well involved in their local safeguarding arrangements, but the position is inconsistent nationally, which can lead to missed opportunities to protect children.

This change will improve join-up of children’s social care, police and health services with education, to better safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in local areas. It will also mean that all education and childcare settings must co-operate with safeguarding partners and ensure that those arrangements are fully understood and rigorously applied in their organisations. I hope that this clause has support from the Committee today.

[Neil O’Brien]

The Opposition do not have amendments to this clause, but we do have some questions. This change is generally a very good idea and we welcome it. I have sat where the Minister is sitting, so I am conscious that, even when a Minister wants to answer all the questions posed by the Opposition, it is sometimes impossible—but I hope, thinking about some of the questions in the last part of our proceedings, that she will continue to consider those and see whether she can get answers to them. I know it is utterly impossible to answer all these questions in real time.

On the Opposition Benches, we welcome the inclusion of education agencies in safeguarding arrangements. All too often, the school is the one agency that sees the child daily and has a sense of when they are in need of protection or are in danger. Our conversations with schools all underline that. We have heard that they welcome this change and that it is a good thing. Last year, schools were the largest referrer of cases, after the police, to children’s social care, and I know from friends who are teachers just how seriously they take this issue. One of my teacher friends runs a sixth form and she spends her spare time reading serious case reviews, so I know that teachers take this issue deadly seriously, and we want to help them to have as much impact as they can.

My questions relate to nurseries, particularly childminders, because this clause is about an extension to education, not just to schools. We understand that child protection meetings can take place via video conference to make them easier to attend. We would just like the Government to confirm and talk about what conversations they have had with those kinds of organisations, which are often literally one-woman bands, about how they will be able to participate, given their very limited staffing and the imperative to look after children in their care effectively.

If the childminder has to go off to some meeting and are shutting down their business for the day, do they have to ask the parents who leave their children with them to find their own childcare? How do we make it easier for these organisations, particularly in relation to really small, really vulnerable children, to take part in this process? We do not doubt that they will want to contribute; we just want some reassurance that the Department is thinking about how that will work well in practice.

The Government argue that education should not be a fourth safeguarding partner because, unlike with other safeguarding partners, there is not currently a single organisation or individual who can be a single point of accountability for organisations across the whole education sector and different types of educational institutions. I understand the Government’s argument, but there are other views. Barnardo’s says in its briefing that

“the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care recommended that the Department for Education make education the fourth statutory safeguarding partner, highlighting that the Department should ‘work with social care and school leaders to identify the best way to achieve this, ensuring that arrangements provide clarity.’

However, the new Bill falls short of this recommendation, mandating only that education providers should always be considered ‘relevant partners’. This should improve the recognition of the importance of education providers in safeguarding arrangements, but we believe that this does not go far enough to protect children at risk.

We recognise that the diverse nature of the education sector could pose a practical challenge in identifying a relevant senior colleague to represent education as a statutory partner. Education settings have a wealth of experience in working with children to keep them safe and we believe it is vital that options are explored to ensure they are able to fully participate in…the planning and delivery of local safeguarding arrangements.”

I want to hear what the Government’s response to those arguments is. As the Minister said, this is a rare legislative moment, so we want to ensure that these important contributions and questions are heard and answered.

Turning to a slightly different question, I understand that there might not be a single point of accountability—which is why this Government, like the previous Government, are not pursuing education providers as the fourth safeguarding partner—but to make this work well, a single point of contact for education might be sensible. Can the Minister confirm that, to support the successful operation of this provision, every local authority currently provides childminders in particular with a line they can call to discuss any concerns, both specific and more general? Schools generally know where to go, but is that true at the moment of nurseries and childminders?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Just to be helpful, last time you said you wanted to speak after the debate had closed. What you could have done was to participate again in the debate before it ended. It is open to anybody who is a member of the Committee to speak more than once in a debate—there is no limit on the number of times you can speak in a debate, but you cannot speak after the question has been put.

If you wanted to tell the Minister that you were dissatisfied or that you wanted to have a meeting, then the time to have done that would have been during the debate. At the end, you could have caught my eye and you would have been able to participate. I am trying to help people so that nobody feels that they are being excluded, because I know how difficult it must be for new Members who have not got the support of an established network in this place.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank Members for their contributions, and I appreciate the support—generally speaking—for the change. I can give the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston confidence that the impact assessments will be produced before the Committee has ended, so there will be an opportunity to study them. In response to his question, we are not making schools the fourth safeguarding partner with this measure. As the hon. Gentleman set out and appreciates, the education and childcare sector does not have a single point of accountability in the same way that a local authority, a health service or the police do. There is not currently an organisation or individual that can take on the role of a safeguarding partner.

The measure is therefore crucial to ensuring that education is consistently involved in multi-agency safeguarding arrangements across England. It places a duty on safeguarding partners to fully include and represent education at all levels of their arrangements in order to ensure that opportunities to keep children safe are not missed. It gives educational settings a clear role in safeguarding locally. It is a vital step towards consistency in local areas, and sends out the clear message that education is fundamental at all levels of safeguarding arrangements.

I appreciate the question that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asked about childcare settings, and about childminders in particular. We deliberately ensured that the measure includes all educational settings, covering early years, childcare and all primary and secondary schools. It spans maintained and independent schools, academies, further education institutions, colleges and alternative provision. It is important that the measure covers the breadth of education and childcare settings in a local area to ensure that opportunities to help and protect children are not missed. I appreciate that, in some childcare settings, those arrangements will be more formal and practised than in others, but it is important that we ensure that no child is left out.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3

Multi-agency child protection teams for local authority areas

[Catherine McKinnell]

I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 33, leave out

“the director of children’s services for”.

This amendment and Amendment 2 make minor changes relating to local authority nominations to a multi-agency child protection team.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments 2 to 5.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Amendments 1 to 5, in my name, relate to the nomination of individuals by safeguarding partners for multi-agency child protection teams. These important amendments ensure that primary legislation is consistent. To be consistent with the Children Act 2004, the reference to those who nominate should be to the safeguarding partners, not to specific roles. It is, after all, the safeguarding partners who are best placed to make the nomination for individuals, and have the required expertise in health, education, social work and policing. We will continue to use the statutory guidance, “Working together to safeguard children”, to provide further information on safeguarding partner roles and responsibilities, which will include nominating individuals in the multi-agency child protection teams.

These amendments ensure consistency with the Children Act and set out that safeguarding partners are responsible for nominating individuals with the relevant knowledge, experience and expertise to multi-agency child protection teams.

[Neil O’Brien]

I have nothing to say about these amendments. I will reserve my comments for our amendment, which is in a different group. I completely understand what the Minister is doing.

Amendment 1 agreed to.

Amendment made: 2, in clause 3, page 3, line 36, leave out

“the director of children’s services for”.—(Catherine McKinnell.)

See the explanatory statement for Amendment 1.

Education, Health and Care Plans

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you as Chair, Dr Huq. I congratulate the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate and commend all hon. Members for their powerful contributions. They are great in number and their time was short, but their voices were very much heard, and they have been listened to. They have done their constituents, who I know are facing significant challenges on this issue, justice today.

Improving the special educational needs and disabilities system across the country is a priority for this Government. That includes improving the experience of the education, health and care plan process for children and young people and their families. We are clear that the SEND system requires reform, and we are working with families, schools, local authorities and partners to deliver improvements so that children and their families can access the support they need. There are no quick fixes; some of the issues are very deep-rooted in our system, but we absolutely agree that change is needed urgently. As a Government who are absolutely committed to breaking down barriers to opportunities for all children and young people—indeed, all people—we believe the way to achieve that is by ensuring that children and young people get the right support to succeed in their education. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) asked whether I agreed that these children and young people should lead happy, fulfilling lives. Absolutely I do.

More than 1.6 million pupils in England have special educational needs, and as one report after another tells us, the SEND system is not providing the support that they and their families need. Although high needs funding for children and young people with complex special educational needs and disabilities continues to rise, confidence in the SEND system remains very low. Tribunal rates are increasing, as are waiting times for the support that children and young people desperately need and deserve. Worst of all, outcomes for children with special educational needs are suffering. Just one in four pupils achieve expected standards at the end of primary school—that is out of all children—and children who have special educational needs are falling behind their peers, struggling to reach expected levels in fundamental reading, writing and maths skills.

We are committed to changing the system. Families are, we know, battling against it at the moment to get support for their children. We are determined to restore parents’ trust that their child will get the support they need to thrive and flourish. regardless of their additional needs or disabilities. We—the Government and I—understand this cannot wait. We will act urgently to improve inclusivity and expertise in mainstream schools, while also—to answer the question from the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott)—ensuring that special schools can cater to those with the most complex needs.

Effective early identification and intervention are, I absolutely agree, key to reducing the impact that a special educational need or disability may have in the long term. This Government know that, and it is why last July we announced the extension of funded support for 11,100 schools registered on the Nuffield early language intervention programme, helping pupils who need extra support with their speech and language development to find their voice. We are also investing in the system—£1 billion in the special educational needs and disabilities system, and £740 million for councils to create more specialist places in mainstream schools—and our curriculum and assessment review is looking at the barriers that hold children back from having the best chance in life.

We cannot do this alone, though. We will continue to work with the sector to ensure that our approach is fully planned and delivered together with parents, schools, councils and the expert staff who we know go above and beyond to support children. I repeat, there are no quick fixes here, but we are getting on with the job and remain committed and determined to deliver the change that children, young people and their families are crying out for.

[Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)]

I appreciate the work that the Minister is doing to address this issue and that there are no quick fixes, but given the terrible cases we have heard today—I have constituent who had to wait two years for an assessment, which spanned the whole length of their GCSE courses—does she agree with those who point out that the funding allocated so far will, given council debts, hardly touch the sides in terms of the SEND capacity that is needed?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will talk about how we are seeking to address this. I appreciate the extent of the challenge that the hon. Gentleman raises. The fundamental point here is that the additional funding being spent is not actually achieving the outcomes that children deserve. That is why we need to reform the system fundamentally, to improve both the process for families and children and the outcomes for children.

The number of education health and care plans has increased year on year since their introduction in 2014. As of January last year, nearly 600,000 children and young people had an EHCP. The plans were introduced as a way of minimising the bureaucracy and time-consuming nature of accessing vital support for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities, to allow them the opportunities they deserve to achieve and thrive.

Over time, however, flaws and lack of capacity in the system to meet lower level needs has added to the strain on specialist services and had a detrimental impact on those who are trying to access support through the EHCP process. As many hon. Members described, that has led to late identification of need and intervention, low parental confidence in the ability of mainstream settings to meet need, inefficient allocation of resources in the system, and inconsistency in practice and provision based on geographical location. All of those problems have contributed to pushing up costs and creating an increasingly unsustainable system.

The latest data we hold shows that in 2023 just 50.3% of new EHCPs were issued within the 20-week statutory timeframe. As the hon. Member for Chelmsford set out, this problem is much worse in some areas, leaving children, young people and their families for weeks, months, and in some cases years, without appropriate and adequate support.

The Government want to ensure that EHC needs assessments are progressed promptly and plans issued quickly to provide children and young people with the support that they need so they can achieve positive outcomes. We are aware that local authorities have felt this increased demand for EHCPs and the subsequent demand for workforce capacity increases, and we recognise that more efficient and effective service delivery and communication with schools and families is pivotal to both rebuilding and reforming the system. Department officials are continuously monitoring and working alongside local authorities to support those who are having difficulty with timely processing of EHCPs. For those who struggle to process and issue EHCPs within the 20-week statutory timeframe and face challenges in making the improvements required to do so, the Department continues to put in place recovery plans with the aid of specialist SEND advisers where necessary.

The Government are absolutely aware of the challenges that families are facing in accessing support for children and young people through this long, difficult and adversarial EHCP process. Independently commissioned insights that we published last year show that extensive improvements to the system and using early intervention, which the hon. Member for Chelmsford mentioned, as well as better resourcing of mainstream schools would have a significant impact on children and young people with SEND who are in need of support. The insights showed that those changes could see more children and young people having their needs met without the need for an EHCP, and within a mainstream setting rather than a specialist placement. As well as that, we have listened to parents, local authority colleagues and partners across education and health and social care. We are considering carefully how to address and improve the experience of the EHCP process and reflecting on what could or should be done to make it more consistent nationally.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford rightly says that early intervention is a priority, and we absolutely agree. Children’s earliest years make the biggest difference to their life chances. We recognise the importance of high-quality early years education and care, which can lead to much better outcomes for all children. Having access to a formal childcare setting allows these needs to be identified at the earliest opportunity. It means that appropriate support and intervention can be put in place so that children with special educational needs and disabilities can thrive.

We have introduced additional resources for early years educators to support children with SEND, including a free online training module and SEND assessment guidance and resources, and we are reviewing the SEND funding arrangements to make sure that they are suitable for supporting children with SEND. This week we published the updated operational guidance alongside detailed case studies of good local practice to provide more detail to support local authorities and promote greater consistency.

The hon. Member for Chelmsford highlighted the broad specialist workforce that is needed across education, health and care. We know that far too many children have been waiting for speech and language therapy. To support the demand, we are working in partnership with NHS England and funding the early language and support for every child programme, trialling new and better ways to identify and support children with speech and language and communication needs. The programme is being delivered through nine regional pathfinder partnerships through our SEND and AP change programme. We know that continuing to build the pipeline of language and speech therapists is essential, so we have introduced a speech and language degree apprenticeship. It is now in its third year of delivery and offers alternative pathways to the traditional route.

Finally, although most education, health and care plans are concluded within a tribunal hearing, I have heard concerns from hon. Members about the process. We want all children and young people with SEND or an AP to get the support they need when they need it, which is why we are strengthening the accountability in mainstream settings to make sure they are inclusive. We are working with Ofsted and supporting the mainstream workforce to increase their expertise. We will also increase mainstream capacity by encouraging schools to set up their own SEND provision units, and we are supporting teachers with training so that every teacher is a special educational needs and disabilities teacher. Again, there are no quick fixes, but we are getting on with the job on multiple fronts.

I thank the hon. Member for Chelmsford again for securing this important debate, and I thank all who contributed today. Reforming the system and supporting children and young people with special educational needs to achieve and thrive and regain the confidence and trust of families are the goals we all share. My final word goes to all those working across education, health and care. In the interests of our children and young people with special educational needs, I thank them for all they do. Together we can deliver for our children and young people, including those with SEND.

[Dr Rupa Huq (in the Chair)]

I call Marie Goldman to respond briefly to this epic debate.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Catherine McKinnell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

It will help if those Members who wanted to ask a question last time but were not called indicate if they want to ask a question in this session.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

Q Is Ofsted pleased to see the measures in this Bill, in the round?

Sir Martyn Oliver: Yes, absolutely. We very much welcome the introduction of the Bill, which will deliver some of the important legislative asks that Ofsted has made for a long time, especially to keep the most vulnerable safe and learning. That includes removing loopholes that enable illegal schools to operate, improving Ofsted’s powers to investigate unregistered schools that we suspect may be operating illegally, enabling Ofsted to fine unregistered children’s homes for operating unsafe and unregulated accommodation for vulnerable children, introducing a register of children not in school—I could go on. We are very happy with large parts of the Bill.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q You have already set out the impact that the Bill will have on Ofsted’s powers. I imagine that you spend a large proportion of your time worrying about the most vulnerable children in society. What do you think will be the impact of the Bill on those children who are most in need?

Sir Martyn Oliver: Our top priority is the most disadvantaged and vulnerable. The ability to look at illegal or unregistered settings, unregistered children’s homes and illegal schools is hugely important. When they are out of Ofsted’s line of sight, it causes us great concern. I think that this Bill or a future Bill could go further and look at unregistered alternative provision, because all children educated anywhere for the majority of their time should be in sight of the inspectorate or a regulator. I do think that we will see significant issues with addressing the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, especially in part 1, on children’s social care.

[Munira Wilson]

Q You talked about the additional powers that you are being given, and you mentioned AP as an area where you would like it to go further. Is there anywhere else where you would like it to go further? Importantly, do you feel that Ofsted has the capacity and capability to deliver on all this? When I talk to local government, I often hear that there are quite a lot of delays with Ofsted.

Sir Martyn Oliver: We think that there are grey areas where the legislation will help us get it right, but we do think that we can go further. For example, the feasibility and administrative costs of carrying out searches of illegal schools and the requirement of getting a warrant would be very burdensome for Ofsted, and we will need additional resource to manage that. It is massively important. We will always use those powers proportionately and with care. For example, in a commercial setting, the ability to have different powers that allow us to search without a warrant would be far more reasonable. Obviously, in a domestic setting, I would expect safeguarding measures to be in place and to require a warrant, because forcing an entry into somebody’s private home is entirely different from doing so in a commercial premises. There are resources there, but I am assured that my team, particularly my two policy colleagues here, have been working with the Department for quite some time on these asks. We have been building our measures and building that into our future spending review commitment as well.

Yvette Stanley: To build on what Martyn has just said, from a social care perspective we would like to go further on the standards for care. National minimum standards are not good enough; the standards should apply based on the vulnerability of and risk to children. A disabled child in a residential special school should not be getting a different level of support: the same safeguards should be in place whether they are in a children’s home or in a residential special school.

We would like to go further on corporate parenting. That is something to be addressed. We would also like to look at regional care co-operatives and regional adoption agencies. Those things tend to fall out of our purview as an inspectorate. There is a range of really detailed things, but to echo what Martyn says, we are working actively with our DFE policy colleagues to give our very best advice through the Bill process to strengthen these things wherever possible.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

We do not want to go too far into the curriculum today, because it is not really part of the Bill.

Paul Barber: I will keep my remarks brief. We have a very clear understanding of what a curriculum is in a Catholic school. It is very much a broad, balanced and holistic curriculum in which there are no siloes and the curriculum subjects interact with each other. There is of course the centrality of RE, which you mentioned. We are hopeful that the review will provide a framework within which we will be able to deliver alongside other views of curricula in other schools.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q Thank you for being here today. What is your assessment generally of the impact of the Bill on faith schools?

Nigel Genders: The Church of England’s part of the sector is very broad in that of the 4,700 schools that we provide, the vast majority of our secondary schools are already academies, and less than half of our primary schools, which are by far the biggest part of that number, are academies. We would like to see the system develop in a way that, as is described in the Bill, brings consistency across the piece. In terms of the impact on our schools, my particular worry will be with the small rural primary schools. Sorry to go on about statistics, but of the small rural primary schools in the country—that is schools with less than 210 children—the Church of England provides 65%.

The flexibilities that schools gain by joining a multi-academy trust, enabling them to deploy staff effectively across a whole group of schools and to collaborate and work together, is something that we really value. What we would not like to see is a watering down of the opportunities for that kind of collaboration. We set out our vision for education in a document called “Our Hope for a Flourishing School System”. Our vision is of widespread collaboration between trusts, and between trusts and academies. The diocesan family of schools is one where that collaboration really happens.

We want to ensure that this attempt to level the playing field in terms of the freedoms available to everyone is a levelling-up rather than a levelling down. I know that the Secretary of State commented on this in the Select Committee last week. I also know that the notes and comments around this Bill talk about those freedoms being available to everybody, but, for me, the Bill does not reflect that. It is not on the face of the Bill that this is about levelling-up. In terms of risk to our sector, I would like to see some reassurance that this is about bringing those freedoms and flexibility for innovation to the whole of our sector because we are equally spread across academies and maintained schools.

Paul Barber: Equally, we have a large foot in both camps. Slightly different in shape, we are involved in all sectors of the school system but the vast majority of our schools are either maintained schools or academies. Currently academies make up just over half. Because our academy programmes are led by dioceses in a strategic way, we buck the national trend in that the number of our primary schools, secondary schools, and academies is almost identical. I agree with what Nigel said. This is a jigsaw of many parts. What we need is an overall narrative into which these reforms fit. It was good yesterday to be able to sign the “Improving Education Together partnership”, to collaborate with the Government in a closer way to create that narrative.

[Munira Wilson]

Q I want to pick up on the faith cap issue that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raised. The 50% faith cap for all new free schools was a policy put in place by the coalition Government. There are concerns that the provisions in this Bill to allow other providers to open new schools would mean that the faith cap does not apply to them. Nigel, I know you are on the record as saying that Church of England schools should be inclusive and serve the whole local community. What do you think will be the impact of losing that faith cap, and should we be putting in an amendment to ensure that the cap is in place for all new schools?

Nigel Genders: I have a couple of things to say on that, if I may. I think where this Bill makes a statement in terms of legislative change is in the ability for any new school not to have to be a free school. That opens up the possibility of voluntary-aided and voluntary-controlled schools as well as community schools and free schools. In each of those cases, you are right, our priority is serving that local community. It is an irony that there is a part of the Bill about new schools when, actually, most of the pressure is from surplus places rather than looking for more places. In particular areas of the country where there is rapid population and housing growth, or in areas of disadvantage and need, we would be really keen to have every option to open a school. I am concerned to ensure that local authorities are given the capacity to manage that process effectively, if they are the arbiters of that competition process in the future.

For us, opening a new school, which we do quite regularly as we are passionate about involvement in the education system, is done with the commitment to provide places for the locality. Where schools can make a case for a different model, and in other faith communities as well, which I am sure Paul will go on to say, is for them to do. Our position is that a Church school is for the whole community and we will seek to deliver that under the 50% cap.

Paul Barber: As I understand the Bill, it removes the academy presumption, so if a local authority runs a competition, there has to be a preference for academies. The provision for providers to propose new schools independently of that has always existed, currently exists and is not being changed, as I understand it, in this legislation as drafted.

In terms of the provision of new schools, we are in a slightly different position because we are the largest minority community providing schools primarily for that community but welcoming others. Our schools are in fact the most diverse in the country. Ethnically, linguistically, socioeconomically and culturally, they are more diverse than any other type of school. We provide new schools where there is a need for that school—where there is a parental wish for a Catholic education. We are very proud of the fact that that demand now comes from not just the Catholic community, but a much wider range of parents who want what we offer. We would not propose a new school, and we have a decades-long track record of working with local authorities to work out the need for additional places.

Admissions is one half of a complex thing; the other is provision of places. Our dioceses work very closely with local authorities to determine what kind of places are needed. That might mean expansion or contraction of existing schools. Sometimes, it might mean a new school. If it means a new school, we will propose a new Catholic school only where there are sufficient parents wanting that education to need a new Catholic school. The last one we opened was in East Anglia in 2022. It was greatly appreciated by the local community, which was clamouring for that school to be opened. That is our position on the provision of new schools. We will try to provide new schools whenever parents want the education that we are offering.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Q What I am getting at is that we need to change the Bill as it is currently drafted by officials, in order to achieve those things.

Leora Cruddas: Yes, I would say that was true.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q I want to ask a question about admissions initially, which can go to any of you. Do you think it is important for schools to at least co-operate with local authorities on school admissions and place planning, in your experience?

Rebecca Leek: I can only tell you, from my experience, that there is a lot of collaboration where I work. We have Suffolk Education Partnership, which is made up of local authority representatives, associations, CEOs and headteachers. Admissions are not really my area, in this Bill, but my experience is that there is collaboration. We are always looking to place children and make sure that they have somewhere if they are permanently excluded. There is real commitment in the sector to that, from my experience where I work.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q Do you think that is important?

Rebecca Leek: Yes, I do.

Jane Wilson: I agree with that completely. We work with our local authorities and follow the local admission arrangements in all of them. We think it is really important, and we obviously want children to get places in school very quickly.

Leora Cruddas: The duty to co-operate does that. We really welcome that duty.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q This question is probably more for you, Leora, but if other people have comments, they are perfectly welcome. I understand that many small trusts are free to follow the school teacher pay and conditions document without variation. Does that indicate that the current pay and conditions framework is working for those trusts?

Leora Cruddas: Thank you for that important question. Our position as the Confederation of School Trusts is that we must not just think about the practice as it is now, but consider what we want to achieve in the future. The freedom, flexibility and agility that Rebecca talked about is important if we are to ensure that leaders have the flexibility to do what is right in their context to raise standards for children. It is also important in terms of creating a modern workforce. We know that we have a recruitment and retention crisis. We know that there is a growing gap between teacher pay and graduate pay, and that the conditions for teaching are perhaps less flexible in some ways than in other public sector and private sector roles. So it is incumbent upon us to think about how attractive teaching is as a profession and think in really creative ways about how we can ensure that teaching is an attractive, flexible, brilliant profession, where we bring to it our moral purpose, but also create the conditions that the workforce of the future would find desirable and attractive.

[Munira Wilson]

Q May I start with you, Leora? I want to ask the same question that I asked the academy leaders who came before you. As a membership organisation representing academy trusts, were you consulted on the provisions in the Bill relating to academies, either formally or informally?

Leora Cruddas: The conversations that we would be having with any Government prior to a policy being announced or a Bill being laid are typically quite confidential. There is also something about what you mean by the term “consultation”. We did have conversations with the Government, and those conversations were constructive and remained constructive. I would say that CST is committed to continuing to work with the Government to get the Bill to the right place.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

Q What is the problem?

David Thomas: I have worked with some fantastic people—generally late-career people in shortage subjects who want to go and give back in the last five to 10 years of their career—who would not go through some of the bureaucracy associated with getting qualified teacher status but are absolutely fantastic and have brought wonderful things to a school and to a sector. I have seen them change children’s lives. We know we have a flow of 600 people a year coming into the sector like that. If those were 600 maths teachers and you were to lose that, that would be 100,000 fewer children with a maths teacher. None of us knows what we would actually lose, but that is a risk that, in the current system, where we are so short of teachers, I would choose not to take.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q You have previously written about the value of ensuring that teachers can do some of their work from home, specifically marking and planning, so do you support the Government’s direction of travel in ensuring that greater flexibility and flexible working is available to more teachers and more schools?

David Thomas: Yes. I find it very odd how little flexibility lots of teachers are given. As a headteacher I remember teachers asking me questions such as, “Am I allowed to leave site to do my marking?” and I thought, “Why are you asking me this? You are an adult”. I absolutely agree with that direction of travel, but I do not see that reflected in the wording of the Bill, so I think there is an exercise to be done to make sure that that is reflected in the Bill. Otherwise, the risk is that it does not become the actual direction of travel.

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q You said some months ago that deciding what to teach is a value judgment, and reasonable people would teach different things, because they value them differently. Is that still a view you hold, and therefore do you also hold that it is not unreasonable to ensure both that there is a common core national curriculum and that that curriculum is periodically updated?

David Thomas: I absolutely still hold that view. I think that, as I said earlier, a core purpose of education is to ensure that people have a core body of knowledge that means they can interact with each other. That is really important. I think that we should update the curriculum and not hold it as set in stone.

My concern would be that the legislative framework around the national curriculum does not ensure that the national curriculum is a core high-level framework or a core body of knowledge. It is simply defined in legislation, which I have on a piece of paper in front of me, that the national curriculum is just “such programmes of study” as the Secretary of State “considers appropriate” for every subject. We have a convention that national curriculum reviews are done by an independent panel in great detail with great consultation, but that is just a convention, and there is no reason why that would persist in future. I would worry about giving any future Government—of course, legislation stays on the statute book beyond yours—the ability to set exactly what is taught in every single school in the country, because that goes beyond the ability to set a high-level framework. I agree with the intention of what you are setting out, but there would need to be further changes to legislation to make that actually the case.

[Amanda Martin]

Q I have a question in two parts, but before I ask it, when we come to this Committee, we have to make declarations of interest. Can I confirm that you were the Conservative party candidate for Norwich South in the last election?

David Thomas: Yes, that is correct.