Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Seventh sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 30th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Mr Stringer. We live in a country where, according to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, three in 10 children are growing up in poverty, and I know from talking to school leaders up and down the country that one of the biggest challenges that teachers face in the classroom is poverty outside the classroom. I do not think that anybody could disagree with the intent of ensuring that children are well fed and ready to learn and start the school day, but I have questions regarding how the provisions of the Bill will be delivered. Some have already been touched on by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston.

First, on practicalities, in our oral evidence session, Nigel Genders, the education officer for the Church of England, said that 65% of small rural primaries are Church of England schools. I asked him about the practicalities of delivering this scheme, and he said:

“there will be particular challenges in small schools in terms of staffing, managing the site,”

and pointed out that there are economies of scale for the large trusts, but not when

“a school…has 40 or 50 children, one member of staff and probably a site manager.”––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 66, Q142.]

How is that going to be delivered? I appreciate that there will be pilot schemes, but that is a big question that needs to be answered. Others have raised similar concerns about resourcing.

Secondly, although it remains to be seen how the pilots work out, given the immense financial pressure that so many schools find themselves under, I cannot stress strongly enough to Ministers how important it is that sufficient money is provided to deliver this programme. We cannot have “efficiencies” being found elsewhere—in terms of teaching staff and other activities that the children would normally get—to fund this. When the Mayor of London rolled out free school meals to all primaries, which I strongly supported, I laid down the same challenge to him. Sadly, the universal infant free school meal funding under the previous Government was very seldom uprated, and I know that schools in my constituencies were trying to trying to find money from other pots to fund it. Proper Funding is absolutely critical. In fact, the Association of School and College Leaders said in its written evidence that many of its members “remain to be convinced” that the money being allocated will be sufficient.

My third concern also relates to some of the oral evidence that we heard last week: when we have such scarce resources, as we are told every single day by the Chancellor and Ministers across Government, why are we not targeting our resources at those most in need? Kate Anstey, from the Child Poverty Action Group, said:

“take-up of breakfast clubs or different schemes is around 40%, whereas the vast majority of children are in school for lunchtime.”––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 98, Q217.]

As a London MP, I can tell hon. Members that children in temporary accommodation are often placed extremely far away from where they are at school. In the case of Twickenham, they are often placed in Croydon or Slough—all over the place—so they are spending 90 minutes, and sometimes longer, getting to school. Many often miss the start of the school day because of transport issues. They are the most needy and vulnerable children, and the chances of them actually being in school to get that breakfast are slim, so as ASCL did, I question whether this provision

“will actually attract those children who would most benefit from it.”

That is why, as the Minister is aware because I have tabled a new clause to speak to this, the Liberal Democrats’ long-standing policy is that we should actually be extending free school meals and providing a hot, healthy meal at lunch time, when children are definitely going to be in school, to all the poorest children in both primary and secondary schools.

I suspect we will touch on this issue when we discuss the next clause, but I will mention now that I was slightly alarmed that proposed new section 551B(5) of the Education Act 1996 says that the food will

“take such form as the appropriate authority thinks fit.”

I recognise that there are school food standards, but I am a bit worried that that might just be a piece of toast and perhaps, if children are lucky, a bit of fruit. Can we ensure that there is strong guidance on the nutritional value of what is being provided?

Finally, on the subject of 30 minutes being the minimum amount of free time, if lots of schools only offer the minimum, and lots of parents have an hour-long commute to work, or even longer than that, 30 minutes will not meet that childcare need. I am worried about the interaction with paid-for breakfast clubs if a parent is having to drop off at 7.30 am, but the free breakfast club does not start until 8 o’clock. Does that mean they get that last 30 minutes for free, but they pay for the first bit? How will that work logistically?

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I welcome what the Minister said about protecting the existing programme in secondary schools for a further year. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston is quite right that schools and families will want to know about much more than just next year, but I appreciate that the expectation is that the certainty will come in the spending review. I hope the same will also be true for the holiday activities and food programme.

Of course, breakfast clubs in school is not a new idea. There are, as the Minister said, 2,694 schools in the national school breakfast club programme, serving about 350,000 pupils. That programme is targeted according to the deprivation of an area, with eligibility at the whole-school level in those areas, and provides a 75% subsidy for the food and delivery costs.

There are many more breakfast clubs than that, however; it is estimated that the great majority of schools have some form of breakfast club. Many clubs, of course, have a modest charge, but if a child attending that breakfast club is helping a parent on a low income to be able to work, typically, that breakfast club provision, like wraparound care provision, would be eligible for reimbursement at up to 85% as a legitimate childcare cost under universal credit. That 85% is a higher rate than was ever available under the previous tax credits system. Some schools also use pupil premium to support breakfast clubs, and there are also other voluntary-sector and sponsored programmes.

From a policy perspective, overall, there are two big objectives to a breakfast club. The first is, of course, to help families with the cost of living, and the other is about attendance. Attendance is an issue in primary and secondary school, but we must remember that it is more of an issue in secondary school, and it is more of an issue the lower people are on the income scale. That is why the national school breakfast club programme runs in secondary as well as primary schools, and why it is targeted in the way that it is.

I also want to ask a couple of questions, as the hon. Member for Twickenham and my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston just did, about how the timings work and about the minimum of 30 minutes. The many schools—perhaps 85% of them—that already have a breakfast club quite often have it for longer than 30 minutes. What should they do? Should they charge for the bit that is not the 30 minutes but have 30 minutes that are free? That is perhaps not in the spirit of what we mean by a universally free service. If they have a paid 45-minute breakfast, would they also have to offer an option to just come for the 30 minutes and have that for free?

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Of course, especially if the hon. Lady has the answer.

[Amanda Martin]

I want to comment more from my own experience, because I used to be a pre-school chair. When the free hours came in for pre-school, they did not cover the full time that the child would be there, so mechanisms were put in place where some elements of the time were free and some elements were not. That sort of arrangement for operating such a system has been around in the sector for quite a while.

[Damian Hinds]

It has, and it has also been very controversial in many cases for pre-school provision, as the hon. Lady will know.

I also want to ask about the costs and reimbursements, which amendments 26 and 27 speak to. The Government, before they were in government and probably since, talked a lot about saving families £400 a year. In my rough maths, if we take £400 and divide it by 190 school days—[Interruption.] Oh, it is £450. Well, I am not able to adjust my maths live, so the answer will be slightly more than the number I give now. My maths gave me £2.10 a day. That seems to be somewhat different from the figures that schools are actually being reimbursed in the pilot programme, so I hope for some clarity on this point.

The details of the early-adopter programme talk about an initial set-up cost of £500, a lump sum of £1,099 to cover April to July and then a basic rate being provided per pupil. There is a different rate depending on whether the child is what is called FSM6—eligible for free school meals previously—if I have read the details correctly. I am not clear why the unit cost of a breakfast would be different between those two groups of children, but perhaps the Minister could fill me in.

Even at the higher rates—the FSM6 rates—there seems to be quite a gap between that and £2.10, or the Minister’s slightly higher figure, when it is £450 divided by 190 days. Obviously, part of that may be made up of savings from bulk purchasing and so on, but it still seems quite a gap, if I have understood the numbers correctly. I hope the Minister can help me to understand.

[Patrick Spencer]

When I was a governor of a primary school, I found that an unintended consequence of underfunded breakfast clubs was parents accruing ludicrous amounts of debt. There are no circumstances in which the school would have turned away the child, but that does not bode well for a policy that is about supporting parents who are hard up. If parents are forced to pay for the breakfast club and accrue huge amounts of debt, we know that is very bad for their mental health and for their general wellbeing. I do not know whether the Minister has anything to say on that point, but I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree.

[Damian Hinds]

As ever, my hon. Friend makes an important point. My worry is that, in a couple of years’ time, when Members sitting on both sides of this Committee Room get emails about the funding pressures on schools—because, spoiler alert, there will still be funding pressures on schools—breakfast clubs will be one of the factors contributing to those pressures, if this programme is not fully funded or almost fully funded. I wonder whether the Minister will say on the record that it is his expectation that this programme will, like the national school breakfast club programme, cover at least 75% of the actual cost of provision.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their interventions. Members will appreciate that future funding decisions are subject to the spending review, but they can have the assurance from me today of the commitment that we have already made with regard to secondary school inclusion in the national school breakfast club programme and, indeed, my recently announced confirmation of more than £200 million for the holiday activities and food programme for the next financial year.

The shadow Minister made a number of points regarding schools currently on the national school breakfast club programme. Funding was confirmed in the previous Budget, which will ensure that that programme continues to at least March 2026. Subject to the will of Parliament, schools with children from reception to year 6 will transition from the existing programme to the new offer of free breakfast clubs lasting at least 30 minutes. The timing of the national roll-out will be confirmed in due course. Schools moving from the national school breakfast club programme to the new offer will be supported in that transition. Further details on the programme will follow after the conclusion of the spending review.

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions about when the duty will commence. Legislating breakfast club provision in this Bill will give schools the certainty that they need for the future. The national roll-out and commencement of this duty will be determined in 2025 after the spending review. National roll-out will also be informed by the assessment of the early-adopter phase of the roll-out, which will help us to test and learn how best we can support schools to implement their duty and overcome the barriers that they might encounter. As the Committee will know, we must go through the appropriate spending review process before committing to a date for national roll-out.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

I rise to speak to amendment 87, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends.

My party and I strongly support the objective of clause 23—to bring down or minimise the cost of school uniform for hard-pressed families up and down the country. We know that the cost of uniform causes a lot of hardship: it impacts school attendance when children do not have the right items of uniform, and we heard during our oral evidence sessions and have seen in some of the written evidence that children are regularly sent home from school if they do not have the right uniform, which I personally find outrageous considering the current attendance crisis. The intent behind this clause is absolutely right; my concern is how the Government have gone about it.

I have two concerns. The first is that, if a number of items are set out in legislation—three or four, depending on whether it is primary or secondary—there is nothing to stop the overinflation of the prices of those items. We could end up in a situation in which, for the sake of argument, three items cost £100 each. There is nothing to stop that happening, so I do not think the provision will necessarily rein in the cost of branded items for families. Secondly, it grates with me as a liberal to have such detailed prescription in legislation about how schools operate and the decisions that school leaders take on the number of items that can be branded.

Amendment 87 sets a cap on cost rather on the number of items, and that would be reviewed and updated through secondary legislation every year to keep it in line with inflation. Schools that want to have more branded items but cannot fit it within the cost cap could sell branded logos that can be sewn on to basic uniform items bought in supermarkets, such as plain jumpers and shirts and so on. I have to say, as a parent of small children, I do not fancy the idea of doing lots of sewing, but I am sure there are more innovative ways to iron on logos and suchlike.

The Association of School and College Leaders expressed the concern on behalf of their members in their written evidence that driving down the number of items and being so prescriptive might have the opposite effect, particularly with PE kit. Children, particularly teenagers subject to peer pressure, might compete to wear more expensive sporting items.

Setting a cap in monetary terms rather than on the number of items, addresses the two issues of overinflation and of over-prescription in legislation. It also has the benefit of being an effective market intervention, because it helps to drive down the costs of suppliers competing for school contracts for schools that want to be able to provide more branded items. That is a much more sensible way of approaching the issue and tackling a problem that we are united in wanting to tackle.

New clause 35 concerns a simple matter of fairness. I cannot understand why the zero rate of VAT applies only on clothing for children up to the age of 14 and that parents have to pay VAT on school uniform for children who are larger or who are over 14. Dare I say it—this is one of the few benefits of Brexit.

[Damian Hinds]

Press release!

[Munira Wilson]

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

We all share the objective of trying to keep costs down and reduce costs where possible. That is why we have guidance to schools on school uniform costs and why that guidance became statutory guidance. It is utterly extraordinary to talk about writing this level of detail about uniform policy into primary legislation.

In our previous days’ discussions on the Bill, we have said we will come back to all manner of really important things in delegated legislation, which can be more easily updated. For some reason, this measure needs to be written into an Act of Parliament.

[Amanda Martin]

The previous Government did take steps on uniform, but they are obviously not working, because parents are paying extortionate amounts of money for uniform. We need to look at what is going wrong. This is a way to help support parents.

[Damian Hinds]

If the Chair will indulge me, I will just read a brief extract of the statutory guidance:

“Parents should not have to think about the cost of a school uniform when choosing which school(s) to apply for. Therefore, schools need to ensure that their uniform is affordable.

In considering cost, schools will need to think about the total cost of school uniforms, taking into account all items of uniform or clothing parents will need to provide…

Schools should keep the use of branded items to a minimum.

Single supplier contracts should be avoided unless regular tendering competitions are run…This contract should be retendered at least every 5 years.

Schools should ensure that second-hand uniforms are available for parents to acquire”—

and that information needs to be readily available, and schools should

“engage with parents and pupils when they are developing their school uniform policy.”

[Matt Bishop]

I wonder about the word “minimum”. What is minimum? Is it 10 items, five items, 20 items?

[Damian Hinds]

What the guidance is saying to a headteacher is, “We trust you to be able to make judgements.” By the way, the Department gives guidance to schools on all manner of things, within which schools then make judgements on what is right, but it is statutory guidance, which means they have to have regard to every element in it.

I think it sounds like pretty good guidance. It is comprehensive. Unlike the clause that will become part of an Act of Parliament, it does not just focus on one aspect of cost. It talks about all the aspects.

[Amanda Martin]

The provision would not be in the Bill if the guidance was working. I have already made this comment. What tracking and monitoring has been done of the statutory guidance? It is obviously not working. We hear from parents who are being charged £100 for a blazer, or a rugby top, which has been mentioned—some of those are £50.

[Damian Hinds]

With deep respect, and I absolutely acknowledge the experience that the hon. Lady brings to the subject, there is nothing in the Bill to stop someone being charged £100 for a blazer. That is my point. It homes in on one aspect of the cost of kitting out a child to go to school and ignores the others.

I think the advice is good, and I wonder what makes the Government think that they can come up with a better formulation than trusting individual schools to make that decision—why they think they can come up with something that is going to work for 22,000 schools.

The hon. Lady says it obviously is not working. In the most recent school uniform survey done by the DFE in 2023, parents and carers were significantly more likely—twice as likely—to report that their school facilitated purchase of second-hand uniform. It had been 32% of parents, but now it is up to 65%.

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston covered how the text as laid out in the Bill uses the word “branded”, but that includes not only where there is a school name or logo but if

“as a result of its colour, design, fabric or other distinctive characteristic, it is only available from particular suppliers.”

It covers rather more items than the lay reader might expect when talking about branded items.

There will be a maximum of three branded items in primary school, and four in secondary school if the fourth is a tie. What have the Government got against ties in primary schools? I put down a written parliamentary question on that, and I got an answer back that explained that the vast majority of primary schools do not have a tie. That is true—but some do. Why is it that Ministers sitting in Sanctuary Buildings think that because most do not have a tie, no one should be allowed to have a tie in year 6?

My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston already asked, and it is also in the amendment in his name, why the Bill specifies one cannot have more than three branded items, rather than require the purchase of more than three. The hon. Member for Portsmouth North outlined a case where the school might decide that a good use of its funds is to provide an item. It might not be sports gear—it might be a book bag—but as currently drafted, the school would not be allowed to do that.

The clause includes the phrase “during a school year”. That is peculiar wording. I do not know of any school that requires the use of uniform outside of the school year, so what is the purpose of that —what is it getting at? I presume that it means that there cannot be a summer uniform and a winter uniform, and not that it means one cannot replace an item part way through the year. First, it would be helpful to know that for sure, and secondly, it highlights again the craziness of writing that level of detail into an Act of Parliament. Schools are already obliged in the statutory guidance to ensure that uniform cost should not be a factor in school choice. Why not trust them to work out how best to do that, rather than have that level of prescription?

The hon. Member for Twickenham also made the point that the cost of uniform is not only about the number of items, but a mix of what the uniform is, the supplier price, the negotiation with suppliers, and the availability of second-hand uniform. Some schools will provide free uniform through a uniform exchange in certain cases. If I had to pick, I would contend that the bigger factor is the availability of second-hand uniform, rather than having one extra item. As I said earlier, many schools now provide that.

I also ask for clarity about optional items. For example, with a woolly hat, a school may say, “You do not have to have a woolly hat, but if you do, it should be a school woolly hat.” I am not clear whether that would be captured by the regulations. On the question of grandfathering, are we saying that from the moment that the Bill becomes an Act, the rules take effect whatever year in school someone is currently in, or are we saying that it applies to new entrants to key stage 1, key stage 2, year 7 or a middle school? If not, does that mean that a pupil already in school could say, “You can’t enforce your existing uniform policy on me”?

Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Vicky Foxcroft.)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fifth sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.]

--- Later in debate ---

[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—

[Damian Hinds]

Will my hon. Friend also comment on the particular situation of those young people from care who go on to university? Of course, come the holidays the vast majority of people in higher education go home, but the situation is very different for those who have been in care. Some enlightened universities—including the University of Winchester, in my own county—do very good work in this regard, but will he expand a little on how those young people in higher education can be supported with the offer?

[Neil O’Brien]

That excellent point is another example of exactly what we are talking about. In one sense, I regret not having an amendment that would insert a specific paragraph about the local offer from national organisations. On the other hand, it is pretty clear that the Minister is very interested in this question and is pursuing it. Anyway, there may even be scope to write that into the Bill as it goes through the Lords.

The DFE’s explanatory notes for the Bill say that, although the housing and children’s services departments are encouraged in guidance—in part 7 of the Children Act 1989, I think—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; the Minister alluded to that.

My question to the Minister is: what do we know from current practice about where that does not happen and why not? It seems obvious, and something that every well-intentioned social worker—every person who works with care leavers—would want to do. What does the good model of effective provision of that support look like? Are there local authorities that are the best cases of that?

Other than providing the administrative and legislative hook for better gripping of this issue, I do not know whether the Minister has a specific plan to do anything else to try to achieve it more consistently—given that, of all the different things that one wants to join up for the care leaver, the provision of a safe place to live and a stable housing arrangements is probably No.1. Is anything more being done? Does the Minister have thoughts about how that can be done best and where it is done best? Where it has not been done as well as we would hope, why is that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I will ask the Minister a couple of questions about clause 9 that I hope he will address when he responds. We support its intent, but I want to understand what safeguards or guidance will be put in place to ensure that children in care in areas where these regional co-operatives are active do not inadvertently end up far away from their families.

We already know that about a fifth of children in care are placed over 20 miles away from their families and almost half are living outside their local authority area. In some cases, it is important that a child is moved reasonably far away for safeguarding reasons, but often that is not the case. I know from having spoken to care-experienced young people and to the Become Charity, which has done quite a lot of research into the impact of children being moved far away from home, that that can affect their mental health, that they can feel isolated and lonely having moved away from family and friends, and that it can cause stigma in the school or college environment. I want to understand how the Minister intends to ensure that young people are not moved further away than they need to be when these regional co-operatives are in place.

[Damian Hinds]

Again, as hon. Members have said, we support this approach and it is the approach that we were taking. It is also true that when everybody agrees on something, it is usually the point of most danger for making bad law. It is important to have these Committee proceedings and proper scrutiny.

I was personally never keen on the name of regional co-operatives, although I do not think the word “co-operative” actually appears in the Bill. We can, of course, have co-operation without having a co-operative. This legislation is actually about regional co-operation arrangements.

There are three different types of potential co-operation arrangement: first, for strategic accommodation functions to be carried out jointly between two different local authorities; secondly, for one to carry out the duties on behalf of all; and thirdly, for a corporate body, effectively a separate organisation, to be created to do that. I imagine that Government Members will have different views depending on which of those three forms the arrangements take. Will the Minister say which of those he expects to be most common? As well as the pilots, there have no doubt already been formal and informal conversations with local authority leaders in children’s services in many different areas.

I am keen to know how this arrangement is different from some arrangements that may already take place. For example, the tri-borough children’s services arrangement in London—I will try and get this right—between Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, and Hammersmith and Fulham. Presumably, some of those functions are administered in common there, so how will this be different?

[Neil O’Brien]

I probably should have asked the Minister about scale. In the two pilots, we have Greater Manchester, which is just under 3 million people, and the south-east, which is roughly 3 million people. I do not know what the Government’s expectations about scale are and whether they would continue to support something like the tri-borough arrangement, which is obviously much smaller.

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a very apt point. Where we end up on that continuum of scale depends on what we are going after most. Of course, we want all those things. For purchasing power, a bigger scale is better, but for close and easy working relationships, a smaller scale is sometimes better. When we are talking about children, and the placement of vulnerable children, that may well push us towards the smaller end of the scale.

Perhaps it is possible to perform different functions at different levels, with some functions still being performed by the individual local authority. Even then, as my hon. Friend often rightly says, there is an enormous difference in scale between London local authorities, which are actually quite small even though they are in our largest city, and Birmingham, which is one enormous authority. It might be argued that doing some things at a sub-local authority level makes sense in a very large local authority area, but as I say, it might be possible to do some things as the single local authority, some things at a larger level, and some things—presumably principally in terms of purchasing leverage—on a wider scale again.

If regional co-operation arrangements are not materially different in practice from something that already exists in co-operation between local authorities, even if that is on a smaller scale than what is envisaged, is legislation actually necessary? If it is not, we probably should not legislate. I would like to understand a bit more about the legislative basis that is currently missing.

Finally, the Bill sets out that the Secretary of State may add to the definition of the strategic accommodation functions that we have listed in proposed new section 22J(3) of Children Act 1989. What type of additional functions does the Minister have in mind?

[Tom Hayes]

I rise to speak in favour of regional co-operation arrangements, primarily because of what we have seen in two important reviews or evaluations. The recent independent review of children’s social care that I referred to highlighted a system at breaking point, as we also heard from the Minister. The insight from that report was that how we find, match, build, and run foster homes and residential care for children in care radically needs to change. When the Competition and Markets Authority looked at this area, it also identified major problems, such as profiteering, weak oversight and poor planning by councils—the verdict on the system is damning.

The independent review recommended that a co-operative model should sit at the centre of bringing about change. The values of our movement could provide the loving homes that children in care need. I particularly support this clause because this feels like a very Labour Government Bill—one that has at its heart the co-operative model that is obviously such a big part of our labour movement.

My hope is that regional care co-operatives could gain economies of scale and harness the collective buying power of independent local authorities to improve services for looked-after children. There are obvious benefits to using a co-operative model to solve those problems—the values of self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity and solidarity apply directly to how these regional care co-operatives would be run. In a social care market that has been described as broken by the Minister and by those reports, it is critical to bring the co-operative model more into what we provide.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

The shadow Minister is absolutely correct. We want to work collaboratively with local authorities in rolling this out. We will not force local authorities to do so. I thank him for enabling me to make that clear.

Question put.

[Damian Hinds]

Forgive me, Mr Stringer; I know that the Minister has finished, but may I speak again, with leave?

[The Chair]

I have put the Question. I am sorry, but you have missed the opportunity.

Question agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Use of accommodation for deprivation of liberty

--- Later in debate ---

Let me recap for the Minister’s benefit. There is the suggestion that the requirement for the Secretary of State to give approval for children aged 13 or under be made clear; there is the suggestion from CAFCASS that we specify in the Bill that review be more frequent for younger children; there is the question about automatically having a child protection plan in place for when the child leaves the deprivation; and then, from the Children’s Commissioner, there is a call for action on the large proportion of children on deprivation of liberty orders who are currently being placed into illegal settings. Effectively, those are the four questions that the expert community is putting to us.

[Damian Hinds]

Clause 10 will amend the Children Act 1989 such that local authorities can authorise deprivation of liberty of children other than only in a secure children’s home, and will change the term “restricting liberty” to “depriving of liberty”.

In the secure children’s home sector, a distinction is often made between what are called justice beds and welfare beds. There are also children detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 on secure mental health wards and in psychiatric intensive care units, or on non-secure wards. I am assuming that we are talking today only about what are known as welfare beds—I say “beds”, but normally the entire facility is either one or the other.

To speak on justice beds briefly, there has been a big fall in this country since 2010 in the number of children who are locked up in the criminal justice system: the numbers are down from about 2,000 in 2010 to only around 500 now. That has partly been because of a fall in crime, and in the particular types of crime for which young people used to be locked up, but it is also because of the good work of youth offending teams. Most of those children are older and would typically be in a young offenders institution when aged 15 to 17, or indeed, 18 to 21. The very small group of children who are in the secure children’s home sector are a very difficult and troubled cohort of youngsters with complex pasts. I take a moment to pay tribute to the staff; it is an extraordinary career decision to go into that line of work, and they do it with amazing dedication.

The welfare bed part of the secure children’s home sector is where somebody has had their liberty restricted not because of something they have done, but because of something they might do—because of the danger or threat they pose either to themselves or others. It is an enormous decision to take to deprive anybody of liberty on those grounds, but particularly a child. As with those children who are in the criminal justice part of the secure children’s home sector, these are typically extremely troubled children.

On the change in clause 10 to allow local authorities to house those children somewhere other than a secure children’s home, the obvious question to the Minister is “Why that, rather than ensuring that a secure children’s home is properly catering to the needs of that cohort of children?” I am not saying that it is the wrong decision, by the way, but I am interested to know, and it is good to have it on record, why it is a better decision to say, “Let’s take some or all of these children and house them in a different type of facility.” What have the Minister and the Secretary of State in mind for the alternative accommodation that would be set out in regulations? For the benefit of the Committee, and again for the record, it might also be helpful to define what is different. The Minister might clarify the definition of a secure children’s home and explain what it is that we need to deviate from.

My other question is about the change in phraseology. We are talking about moving from the restricting of liberty to the depriving of liberty. I understand from the explanatory notes that this tries to reflect the reality, but it is a legitimate question whether it is a strictly necessary change to make and what the reasoning is. Even when we do deprive people of liberty, we do not deprive them of all their liberty. There are degrees of restriction. We have this as a feature in the criminal justice system, and though this is a different cohort of children, some of the same principles may apply. We may be able to get a lot of the benefit we are looking for from restricting someone’s liberty rather than entirely depriving them of it. I wonder if the Minister might say a word about that distinction and about whether the Government have received representations on the change in wording.

[Ian Sollom]

My understanding is that this change follows a trend of children being deprived of their liberty outside the statutory route by being housed in unsuitable accommodation not registered with Ofsted, often far from home and family. That has been partly addressed in the questions from the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston.

The success of this provision will depend on the regulations. What actually makes a setting capable of being used for the deprivation of liberty? Will there be a requirement with respect to education in that setting? Will they need to be registered with Ofsted? It is not entirely clear. When will regulations relating to this provision be brought forward? Is it the intention that they will mirror the scheme for the secure accommodation?

The law around the deprivation of liberty is incredibly complex. Without proper legal advice and representation, it is very hard for families to understand what is going on and what options they have. It is not clear yet what legal aid will be available to families or the child themselves when an application is made under the new route. Can the Minister clarify what will be available with respect to legal aid, or put a timetable on when we will get that clarification?

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Monday 27th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Morgan]

Over 13,000 pupils in Knowsley are supported with a healthy and nutritious free meal at lunch time through the Department’s free school meals and universal infant free school meals programmes. Unlike the Conservative party, we are on the side of parents in making a child-centred Government a reality. My hon. Friend is a real champion on these matters, and I am happy to meet him to discuss them further.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Because the previous Government widened eligibility, one in three children could get a free school meal in 2024, compared with one in six in 2010. That was despite the fact that 600,000 fewer children were growing up in workless households and that the proportion of people on low pay had halved. Will the Minister commit that this Government will maintain those levels of eligibility?

[Stephen Morgan]

The Department recognises the valuable role that free school meals play and encourages all parents eligible for the entitlement offer. We will continue to review our approaches and take a consistent approach going forward.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to amendment 49 regarding family group decision making at the point of family reunification.

Reunification—the process of returning a child in care to their family—is the most common route by which children leave care, accounting for 27% of all children who left care in 2023. It is also one of the most sensitive and significant transitions a child can experience. When done well, it can offer children stability, security and permanence at home with their family, but too often the reunifications fail. In fact, one in three children who return home then re-enter the care system, so thousands of children are enduring yet more displacement, disrupted attachments, instability and broken trust.

The human cost of those failed reunifications is immeasurable, but the financial cost is also stark. Failed reunifications cost the public purse £370 million annually—money that would be better spent supporting families in the first place. Research tells us that too many reunifications break down because families do not receive the support that they need to make that process successful, tut there is no national strategy for supporting reunifications. Support across the country is inconsistent, and alarmingly, 78% of authorities report that the support that they offer is inadequate—the authorities report that themselves.

Amendment 49 provides a clear, practical, evidence-based solution—effectively a mirror to the Government’s clause 1. The amendment would require local authorities to offer family group decision making no later than one month after the discharge of a care order for the purpose of family reunification. Of course, in practice, it is envisaged that the family group decision-making process would be offered before the child returns home to support that return.

As the Committee has already heard and discussed, family group decision making is a powerful tool. It brings families together to identify solutions, develop a plan and build a network of support around the child. It can empower families to take ownership of the challenges that they face, and foster collaborative work with professionals that promotes the safety and wellbeing of the child while also amplifying the child’s voice. My argument is that that is as important towards the end of a care process as it is at the beginning.

Family group decision making is well established and recognised as best practice by professionals. We already have clear evidence on its effectiveness, and we are awaiting more, as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said. However, the lack of a statutory duty to offer it has led to patchy practice across the country. One third of local authorities do not offer family group decision making at all during reunification. Amendment 49 addresses that gap. It would ensure that every family in England has the opportunity to benefit from that approach. The requirement in the amendment is to offer it; it does not impose any sort of time limit.

Some Members might worry about the practicalities or cost of introducing the duty, but as I have already explained, the breakdown of family reunification is an incredibly costly process, both financially and for the child’s welfare. The amendment is a financial cost-saving measure as well as a child-centred one. Research shows that providing support to meet a family’s needs during reunification costs just £7,857 per child. By contrast, the cost of a single reunification breakdown is £105,000. Amendment 49 would be

The amendment is practical and allows for professional judgment, recognising that every family is different. Where a meeting is not in a child’s best interests, the local authority would be exempt from the duty to make the offer, and that flexibility ensures that the needs of children always come first. The amendment also complements existing provisions in the Bill. It effectively mirrors the duty to offer family group decision making before care proceedings, and therefore offers a coherent support framework at both ends of the care process—effectively bookending it. It brings much-needed consistency to a fragmented system.

With more children in care than ever before, as we have noted, and with children’s services under immense strain, the amendment represents a real opportunity. By embedding family group decision making we can enable more families to stay together, reduce the number of children returning to care, which is an incredibly damaging process, and relieve pressure on an overstretched system, all while delivering better outcomes for those children. This is about fairness, consistency, investing in what works and ensuring that all reunifying families, not just some, are given the help they need. It is about recognising the importance of successful reunification within the care process. I very much look forward to hearing the Minister’s reflections on the proposal and the other questions raised this morning.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Of course I agree with and entirely support the spirit of what the Government are doing. It forms part of the strand of development intended in the “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy; across the House, we share similar motivations on all these matters.

On the comments from the hon. Member for North Herefordshire on reunification and amendment 49, I do not think an amendment to a Bill is the moment to introduce such a thing, but I am sure that in their continuing work, Ministers and officials will look at how the reunification process can be improved for all the reasons that she rightly gave.

I have a couple of questions on the inclusion of children in meetings, which is relevant to clause stand part and to amendment 36. My first question is: what guidance will accompany the new provisions? In some cases it will be obvious that a child should not be present, but beyond that it is perhaps difficult to generalise. Of course we trust professional judgment, but I wonder about the extent to which further guidance may be useful. I am thinking particularly of children with learning disabilities, who sometimes feel that things are done that affect their lives in a big way and they have less of a say than other children, because somebody has made that judgment when perhaps they did not need to. Secondly—this is a minor point in the grand scheme of things—I wonder why the legislation and the explanatory notes do not say that a child may be present for part of the meeting. It may be appropriate to have part of it with the child and part of it without them.

[The Chair]

I call the Minister. [Interruption.] I call Tom Hayes. It is helpful for the Chair if you rise in your place if you intend to speak.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

Q Before I was elected, I ran a domestic abuse and mental health charity, so I can definitely speak to the value of the mandate, even in a local authority setting, which was excellent. Anne, are the other measures in the Bill proportionate to the aim of driving local integration and making sure that the child is at the centre of all decision making?

Anne Longfield: There are a number of other interventions that we could include that would strengthen children’s participation and children’s being at the centre of their communities. One of those is around children’s play. We know that children’s access to play has reduced dramatically over recent years. Play is the thing that children say they want: it is at the top of their list. We were very worried about access to play and the dominance of social media in children’s lives. Wales introduced a play sufficiency duty in 2010. It was not a huge cost. It meant that local authorities had to plan for play and respond to play. That kind of strategy would be, for a first stage, a very cost-effective way of reflecting children’s needs in the community.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Q We talked earlier about the measurement of wellbeing. There are surveys of children’s wellbeing by various organisations now: the Office of the Children’s Commissioner—your old office, Anne—does something, the King’s Trust does something, UNICEF has done an international survey and so on. What would the output of the surveys you envisage be used for?

Could you also say a word or two about the mental health of children and young people survey, wave 4 of which was most recently published by the NHS and the future of which is uncertain? Would you like to see that series of surveying and reporting carried on?

Dr Homden: Yes, we would. It is incredibly important that we are able to account for the implementation and for whether the Bill actually helps us to improve children’s wellbeing. It is also extremely important that that happens systematically across local services and in any area in which we can respond and adapt services to meet the needs of children. Generally, we feel that it is extremely important that wellbeing measurement is advanced and made more systematic and consistent.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of this session. I thank our witnesses.

Examination of Witnesses

Andy Smith and Ruth Stanier gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Q I want to ask about elective home education, but first, very quickly, we are going to legislate in this Bill for the provision of breakfast at primary schools. Has either of your organisations received any guarantees about the future of existing support for breakfast clubs in secondary schools, or the future of the holiday activities and food programme?

Ruth Stanier: We very much welcome the provisions in this Bill around breakfast clubs. We think it is incredibly important that—

[Damian Hinds]

Forgive me, but that is a different question. We know what the legislation proposes for primary school breakfast, but my question was about whether you have heard anything—whether you have had any guarantees—about the future of existing support for breakfast clubs in secondary schools in underprivileged areas, or for the holiday activities and food programme.

Ruth Stanier: On the first of those issues, I am not aware of any such guarantees or representations. I can see the point you are making, which is important. In respect of holiday activities, I have seen recent media coverage that seems potentially positive. Clearly, we very much want that support to remain in place.

Andy Smith: My view would be similar to Ruth’s. The evidence and the impact of HAF are so tangible. We absolutely strongly support that continuing for the most vulnerable children.

[Damian Hinds]

Q Turning to elective home education, as Munira Wilson said, there is a great deal of detail in the Bill about information that will be required of parents—for example, the allocation of individual parents’ time dedicated to the education of that child, and so on. Andy, I think you rather diplomatically said that perhaps we needed some reflection on the text. I wondered if you might reflect out loud, and say if you think it goes into an unnecessary level of detail that might be considered rather onerous for parents who are home educating—sometimes in very difficult circumstances—and indeed for your colleagues in local government. Have you made an estimate of how much cost would come with this system?

Andy Smith: We have not made a estimate about how much cost would come with the system. Clearly, there would need to be a new burdens assessment on any changes, because you cannot do these reforms on the cheap. It is really important to make that point.

From previous surveys that we have done with local authorities on elective home education, it is evident that over the last 10 to 12 years, the capacity has been hollowed out. You are often talking about not even a full-time post. In my authority, for example, we have less than one full-time equivalent worker on EHE, who goes out and knocks on doors and tries to talk to parents. If you superimpose the changes envisaged by the Bill, that provision would be significantly insufficient. This is much more than an administrative task. Some councils have an admin-like role that undertakes this function.

Notwithstanding whether there is currently too much detail, if we think about the practical things around visits, understanding the offer, trying to understand what is happening to children and building up that picture, there would need to be sufficient capacity to get sufficient workers in post across places to do that, and they would need be sufficiently trained. That is probably more important in terms of the line of sight on the child than having a huge amount of information and detail about mums and dads and carers.

[Damian Hinds]

Q A question that often comes up with electively home-educating parents is about the support that is or is not available to them in their efforts. The Bill does make provision for support to those parents, but on page 55, it says:

“The advice and information to be provided is whatever the local authority considers fit”.

You mentioned a moment ago that there would be some benefit in having more consistency across the country. Would you give a few thoughts on what you think “fit” is in terms of that support? In particular, a question that often comes up from parents is about entry into examinations.

Andy Smith: What constitutes a good elective home education offer will be very different depending on the parent and on the context, and depending sometimes on the rationale around why parents decided to implement EHE for their child. There should be some consistency around what those expectations are. We know that parents provide some fantastic enriched opportunities for their children through EHE and they are able to also sit exams, and there will be some learning from that.

The challenge in this space is that we are not starting with a level playing field. We have moved from a context where we were maybe 10 or 15 years ago, where you had parents who were EHE because of philosophical reasons around that being important for children and for their particular lifestyle. We are now often talking about kids who are not in school because they have been sidelined or discriminated against, because they are SEND or because they are being bullied. There needs to be some expectation and understanding around their starting points as well as what a good offer looks like.

We need to work that through based on the research. We need to try to co-produce that with parents. We need to do that in a way that we think will be broad enough not to tie parents down, but to ensure some consistency, particularly in terms of what the local authority role is and understanding the impact of that.

Ruth Stanier: I want to stress that if it were to be mandatory for councils to pay for exam fees, because clearly there is a case for that, it obviously would need to be funded.

[The Chair]

We still have six keen people wanting to come in, so can we have brief single questions and answers, please?

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Q What is the importance in the Bill of providing a clear legal basis for sharing information with the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children?

Paul Whiteman: We absolutely support that. A statutory duty for schools and educators to be consulted in that respect is necessary, and it will widen the voices within that. After all, it is in schools that children are most present and visible, and teachers and school leaders already play a role in noticing changes and issues.

Julie McCulloch: We feel the same way. I would simply add that it is a growing set of responsibilities on schools—burden is not the right word, because schools absolutely need to do it. We are hearing a lot about the pressures on designated safeguarding leads in schools. While we also welcome schools’ having a statutory role here, we need to recognise that schools will need support and sufficient resources to deliver that.

[Damian Hinds]

Q I did some rough calculations, and I think 3.1% of full-time equivalent teachers do not have QTS. In 2010, which happens to be the year the data series started, it was 3.2%. On pay and conditions, no one seems to have come forward with any widespread evidence of schools paying less than what might be this floor condition. In your estimation, what problem are the Government trying to solve with these two measures?

Paul Whiteman: I think you are asking the wrong people. I do not know what is in the minds of Government.

[Damian Hinds]

Q Paul, you like to speculate—come on.

Paul Whiteman: Damian, you know me too well. I cannot answer what was in the minds of Government. Broadly speaking, as I have said, I think it is a legitimate expectation of parents that a teacher in front of their child is qualified to teach them. On the push from both your Government and this Government for standards to be the voice of parents, and in talking about doing this for the expectations of parents, I think that gets alongside that ambition, so it is welcome.

On the pay flexibilities, the debate is louder than it needs to be because of the point that you made—we have not really deviated much from the STCPD. The whole point of having an independent pay review body to establish what the floors should be has worked in that regard but we need it to offer more, and obviously we would always say that. Where I would phrase it slightly differently, on the question of whether we would ask for an amendment for a floor and not a ceiling, is I would talk about a core rather than a floor. There should be a core of terms and conditions that means a teacher or school leader is agile within the system and portable. We do not want people being stuck and unable to move because the terms and conditions vary so widely. That would work against our ambition of delivering the very best education system and getting the best teachers in front of children.

Julie McCulloch: I would not disagree with anything there. Core is a better term and it suggests not a minimum but a core entitlement, and I think that is right. On pay and conditions, yes. We hear from our members that some of them have exercised some upward flexibilities and they are keen to able to continue to do that, and to recognise the context in which they are operating. They are keen to maintain that while keeping that core. QTS is a very small number, but where that number exists, there might be reasons for it. It is important to recognise the balance between wanting a fully qualified professional and some of the nuance there.

[Damian Hinds]

Q I think a lot of people see the measures in the Bill on flexibilities for schools, on academies and on the national curriculum as quite a dramatic change, or a dramatic undoing of reforms made to the school system over the course of multiple Governments over the last couple of decades. Paul, you said in your opening remarks that this is not “a revolution”. My question is: come the revolution, what should we expect to see in Labour’s next Bill?

Paul Whiteman: As a trade union that is politically independent and speaks to all of you, I have no insight into what might be in Labour’s next Bill.

[The Chair]

I think that is not a terribly serious question, Damian. Darren, let us get on with it.

[Damian Hinds]

It is a serious question.

[The Chair]

It is not part of the Bill, and we have to stick to this Bill.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Amanda Martin]

Q So, to answer my question, you are giving evidence as the commissioner.

Dame Rachel de Souza: Always. I would not come to Parliament and do anything else.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Q Dame Rachel, can you talk a little about the register of children not in school? What is the irreducible core of what we need to know and what information should be gathered in those cases?

Dame Rachel de Souza: We have always been worried, and successive Governments have felt that maybe there was a need for this—I think you, Damian, did the first consultation on it a long while back—and there has been a debate going on about whether we should have a register of children not in school. I am delighted to see it in this Bill.

The number of children missing from education is getting worse. We know that post-lockdown, there was a massive rise in children persistently absent and severely absent, and a massive number of children missing from education. I have made it my business to look into who those children are; I did that in 2021. We have three pots of children: children with special educational needs who went off in 2019 and have not come back; children with mental health/anxiety concerns; and children who really have just gone, who are at risk of CSE. We really need a register.

We have another problem, which I have investigated. I looked at last year’s roll and compared it with this year’s roll, and we found at least 13,000 children who we could not account for, plus another 10,000 who were CME. They had gone to be home-educated, because they did not feel that their needs were being met in school and they felt that they were driven to that. We absolutely need a home register.

[The Chair]

We will have one final, brief question—hopefully with a brief answer—from Darren Paffey.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

I am very pleased to hear it.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Q Thank you for being with us today, Sir Martyn. When your HMIs find academies or academy trusts significantly deviating from the national curriculum, what are the usual reasons and in what ways do they deviate?

Sir Martyn Oliver: Actually, the education inspection framework that we currently use significantly reduced the deviation of academies because it set out the need to carry out a broad and balanced curriculum. That was interesting, because it was not what was set out in the articles of the individual academies and those freedoms, so Ofsted has been in tension with those articles for quite some time.

The Bill puts everyone on the same footing. I think that there is good in that, but speaking as HMCI, as a previous chief executive of one of the largest trusts, as a headteacher and as a teacher for 30 years, I would always want to give headteachers the flexibility to do what is right for their children, as long as it ultimately delivers the broad and balanced education that you would expect all children to receive.

[Damian Hinds]

Q When they do deviate, what do the reasons tend to be?

Sir Martyn Oliver: The most typical reason is a focus on the core standards of English and mathematics. We often see that, but I am afraid that in some cases it goes beyond improving core standards: there are some that hot-house to the exclusion of being broad and balanced. It is important that a headteacher always retains a broad overview of a child to make sure that children get the core standards for their future, but also a well-rounded education in total.

[Damian Hinds]

Q What would be the impact, in the framework and in the inspection outcome, if the school were not following a broad and balanced curriculum?

Lee Owston: That would currently come under our quality-of-education judgment. It would not be seen as good if we could not, through the evidence we collect, determine a broad and balanced curriculum for all children.

Sir Martyn Oliver: I am about to consult on a measure that will allow more nuance and better identify that.

[Damian Hinds]

Q Finally, on the different subject of elective home education, quite a lot of detail is proposed in the Bill about the way the register of children not in school will work, including some requirements on the registration of providers of education to those individuals, whether that be online education or some other form of tutoring. How much consultation has there has been with Ofsted about the drawing up of those provisions?

Sir Martyn Oliver: We have been involved in that for quite some time, even with previous Governments, whether it was about online education or all these aspects. I think that all our intelligence, for years, has carried forward into this Bill.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Q I want to talk about unregulated schools and the register of children not in school. I have seen evidence outside the Committee that shows that there are serious concerns about poor education in unregulated settings, as well as abuse and neglect. If you have any comments about what the problem is that the Bill is trying to solve, I and other members of the Committee would like to hear them. How will the new powers relating to unregulated schools allow you to protect children at risk of harm, specifically? Will they be an improvement on the current powers that you have?

Sir Martyn Oliver: To answer your last question first, absolutely: it is a significant improvement on our powers. Since 2016, we have carried out almost 1,400 criminal investigations into almost 1,300 unique unregistered settings. Not all investigations lead to an on-site inspection. We have carried out almost 900 on-site inspections and issued 200 warnings, meaning that in over one fifth of on-site inspections, we were able to secure sufficient evidence that a crime was being committed, despite our limited powers at that point and under the current legislation. We have worked with the Crown Prosecution Service to successfully prosecute seven cases, including a total of 21 individual convictions.

The new powers will significantly improve our ability to do that, and the speed at which we can do it. It is very difficult to carry out those investigations. It is incredibly resource-reliant and takes significant time—regularly between 12 and 24 months—if we can get it to that position. The changes will help to address those loopholes in the law, but we think that there are some areas for improvement. As I have said, the need to get a warrant in all cases will be incredibly bureaucratic and expensive for Ofsted. Obviously we want to do it with care—we do not want to break into people’s homes and inspect them—but on commercial premises we think that there is a more proportionate response, which will reduce bureaucracy, reduce the cost to Ofsted and allow us to focus on keeping children safe.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

Q I want to come back to breakfasts, if I may. I think this is a question for Mark. The Bill legislates for universal breakfast provision at primary school, but is silent on what happens at secondary school. We do not know what will happen. The Government have been asked, including by Government Back Benchers, to extend the provision to secondary school. They have made the point, which is not an unreasonable point, that you have to make choices in a resource-constrained world, and their choice is to go universal at primary, but with quite a small per child, per day cash allowance. Recognising the resource-constrained world, would you make that choice if you were in the same position, or would you say it was better to target according to how deprived an area is—not by individual child, but by area—regardless of the age of the child?

Mark Russell: That is a very good question. I understand why the Government have taken the decision they have; I really do. Particularly in a primary school, you want to be as universal as possible.

[Damian Hinds]

It would be the whole school, as it is now under the school breakfast programme.

Mark Russell: Yes. With limited resources, I would probably have targeted it more at those most in need and included secondary school children in that mix. We will continue talking to the Government about secondary school children; I am deeply concerned about them as well.

[Damian Hinds]

Q This is probably for Lynn or Katharine. In terms of trying to address mental health issues as they arise early on, before they become a crisis, following the change in Government, are you aware of any change in the approach towards mental health support in schools through mental health support teams for clusters of schools?

Lynn Perry: I have not yet seen any change on the ground. We deliver a number of mental health support teams in schools. We consider them to be an effective way to reach children and young people at an early stage, and to intervene before they reach crisis point. There are often relationships of trust. Quite frequently, people know their children very well within the school context and can manage that supported and enabled engagement with provision in schools. I have not seen anything that has translated into a direct change in practice at this juncture, but we think it is a really important area of work. We think that there is potential to do more in that space, by looking at what might be described as an MHST+ type model.

[The Chair]

Finally, Darren Paffey. We have about 90 seconds left.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lizzi Collinge]

Q May I clarify? In certain circumstances, yes, you would like to have schools with 100% place selection?

Paul Barber: We are talking about oversubscription criteria, which only kick in when there are insufficient places to satisfy parental demand. In those cases, we would wish to continue to give priority to Catholic families.

Nigel Genders: Again, Paul has identified a difference in policy area between the two Churches in this space. My answer is the same as previously: that would not be the case for the Church of England. We are much more interested in some of the other parts of the previous consultation, which have not come through yet—around special schools and the designation of special schools with religious designation. The Church of England would love to be able to provide special schools in those circumstances. In the provision of new schools, whether voluntary-aided free schools or voluntary controlled, we would not be looking to do 100%.

Paul Barber: We would also welcome having more. We already have special schools, but we would like to have more.

[Damian Hinds]

Q I would like to go back to the curriculum—

[The Chair]

Order. Is that relevant to the Bill? As long as you relate it directly to the Bill—

[Damian Hinds]

I promise you, Mr Betts, that it will be relevant to the Bill. As Nigel I think rather charitably said, his schools would be “asked” to sign up to something without knowing what the something is—but I do not think they are going to be asked, Nigel; I think they are going to be told. You also said that we hope—I include myself in that “we”—that it will be a broad framework, which will allow everyone to do their distinctive thing, as they do today. That is a hope, but we do not know. For example, there is a movement to rebrand religious education as “world views”—does that make you nervous?

Nigel Genders: I am in danger of getting into the curriculum discussion, rather than the—

[Damian Hinds]

Q To keep us both in order—

[The Chair]

Order. You will emphasise that this must relate to the Bill.

[Damian Hinds]

I will, absolutely. Do you feel any nervousness or concern about the removal of the safety valve that says academy schools can deviate from the national curriculum?

Nigel Genders: With all the discussion about the curriculum and the national curriculum, RE is part of the core curriculum; it is not in the national curriculum at the moment. Levelling the playing field up or whichever way you want to do it, there is a requirement to teach a breadth of RE within that curriculum as a core subject, but it is not defined in the national curriculum. We are happy with that position but, either way, the important thing is that we enable a broad, rich and holistic curriculum to develop—for the reason of behaviour that Neil mentioned as much as anything. We want children to enjoy coming to school, and the curriculum is a fundamental part of that.

Paul Barber: Maintained schools have to follow the national curriculum, and over half of ours are maintained schools currently. We have a very rich religious education curriculum. Recently, we published a curriculum directory, which I can share with the Committee if interested. Our position on RE is also well set out in our evidence to the curriculum and assessment review—again, we can give copies to the Committee if that would be helpful.

[Damian Hinds]

Q RE is not the only sensitive subject; there is also English literature, history or RSHE. My question had a religious bent to it, but it was really about taking away that safety valve and that ability of academy trusts to say, “We are not going to follow precisely what has been set out.”

Nigel Genders: I think our point is that we would like to see that flexibility within the national curriculum available to everybody. I am very much in favour of levelling up, as long as the curriculum gives the space to do that.

[Damian Hinds]

Q We have just talked a little about the admissions arrangements for VA and VC schools. You have also alluded to the fact that rolls are falling in many places—they are falling initially mostly in primary, but that will feed through. Are you concerned about the more directive nature of what will be available to councils and the position that that would put your schools in, particularly voluntary aided schools? On the question of new schools, as you rightly pointed out, Paul, it has always been possible to open a VA school—it is not a very well-known fact that some VA schools have opened. With this Bill, do you think it is more or less likely that in the near future you will be able to open more Catholic schools?

Paul Barber: From what I can see, I do not think it is any more or less likely. In terms of the directive power, my understanding is that the position in VA schools remains the same, and that it is academies that will have a direction-making power similar to that which already applies to voluntary aided schools.

[Damian Hinds]

Q Forgive me—we are very short on time. I was talking about a council’s ability to stop a popular school expanding, for example. You both mentioned earlier that you have some really quite popular schools, and now the council will have much more an ability not to let that happen.

Paul Barber: Sorry; I misunderstood. You are talking about the restrictions on schools unilaterally changing their published admission number. Our position on that is that it is because of this relationship between admissions and the planning of school places, which must be planned in some way. Our diocese has a long track record of decades of working with its local authorities and with the diocese in the Church of England to work out what is required in the future, and looking forward for places and planning that. Having some kind of regulation of schools’ published admissions numbers is quite helpful in ensuring that that works smoothly, because if you plan it and three schools then arbitrarily decide to increase their published admission number, that creates some real problems locally with place planning.

Nigel Genders: We would agree with that. Not to rehearse all that Paul has just said, but a further point is that when it comes to resourcing local authorities to carry out their role in the allocation and direction of schools to take particular pupils, we are really keen to see that done in a way that makes fairness the arbitrating factor to ensure that there is a real fairness of approach. The collaboration between maintained and academy and diocese and local authority very much needs to happen, and we would welcome that.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q I have a very specific question on small rural primary schools attempting to deliver breakfast clubs, potentially with a very small number of staff. What is your understanding of whether the time spent doing breakfast clubs will count as directed time?

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

Q How do you think the curriculum provisions in the Bill might impact university technical colleges, which are by definition much more specialist in their offering?

Leora Cruddas: That is a question that we have raised. We hope that the curriculum and assessment review will address that issue, but it is also for the Government to address it, because the review will look at the high level of curriculum and assessment, whereas it is the Government who have laid the legislation. We have raised that as a specific issue, and we have also raised the issue about special schools and what it means for them.

[Damian Hinds]

Q Good afternoon. Leora, how central a role would you say that academy trusts have played in school improvement in this country? Is there any reason to believe that the same results could not have been achieved with just some support to the school as previously structured?

Leora Cruddas: I am an advocate for academy trusts, because of the clarity of accountability arrangements, the strong strategic governance, and the powerful, purposeful partnership between schools in a single legal entity. If a school is part of an academy trust and it is perhaps not improving or the quality of education is not as strong as it could be, and a conversation is had with that school, the school cannot walk away. The accountability for school improvement—the partnership mindset—is hardwired into the trust sector.

For the last 20 years, spanning all political Administrat-ions, trusts have been building their school improvement capacity. Again, I would cite Northern Education Trust, which has an incredibly strong model of school improvement, and that is how it has turned around failing schools in the way that it has. The school improvement capacity sits in the trust sector.

That is not to cast aspersions on local authorities—I was a director of education in local government for most of my professional life—but over time, as local authority settlements have decreased and local authorities have reduced their school improvement capacity, so we have seen the rise of school improvement capacity in the trust sector. That is not true everywhere—Camden Learning, for example, has a very powerful model of school improvement—but overall, we see that the capacity for school improvement is in the trust sector.

[Damian Hinds]

Q I wanted to turn to Northern, actually, and to Jane. One of the things that you are famous for at Northern is your work on attendance. I wonder if you might say a word about the role that breakfast clubs play in that, and whether that is restricted only to primary schools.

Jane Wilson: We have breakfast clubs in our primary schools and our secondary schools that children can attend. Most of those are free or charge a very small amount for the food and care that the children receive. It is an offer that we have across the trust. In terms of attendance, it enables children, often from very disadvantaged backgrounds, to have a very settled start to the day and receive care and attention before the school day starts. It means that once the school day does start, learning can become the priority. So they play a fundamental role in improving attendance in our academies, particularly for those disadvantaged children—and we serve communities of real disadvantage. We have roughly twice as many disadvantaged students as the number seen nationally across our trust.

[Damian Hinds]

Q Finally—

[The Chair]

Briefly, because other Members want to come in.

[Damian Hinds]

Very briefly, Rebecca, what role does uniform play in identity for your school and the sense of belonging?

Rebecca Leek: I think that uniform does play a role. It is sometimes a really useful mechanism to improve a school—to sort it out—as well. I do have some further things to say about uniform, if there is time and anyone wants to ask me about it.

[Damian Hinds]

Q How do you keep it affordable and make sure it is not a barrier?

Rebecca Leek: School uniform is generally very affordable. You are asking a primary school, so we do not have blazers, but certainly it is very affordable. It has never been an issue. We also give away free uniform. I think there are problems in the Bill with the uniform wording.

[Darren Paffey]

Q I want to pick up on the previous point about the curriculum floor. I wonder whether the panel agree that the opportunities of a broad, balanced curriculum that is modern, engaging and offered regardless of the badge and branding over the school door should be available to young people everywhere. Would you consider that a good thing, or would you consider the Bill—as I think Rebecca described it—a reactive, retrograde step?

Rebecca Leek: I do believe that a broad entitlement for children is really important. What I am concerned about is that, first, we do not know what will be in the national curriculum and, secondly, schools sometimes need a little bit of flexibility to maybe not do a couple of subjects because they are addressing something that has happened within their school community over a couple of years or months or a term.

I had a school in south Essex in a trust that I led where we needed to reduce the curriculum for a little while. It was post covid. You may say, “Well, that was covid,” but we do not what is coming. I needed to work with some children in key stage 2 on a slightly narrower curriculum to really help them with their maths and English so that they would be able to access secondary school. That is what we decided to do, and it was an academy school, so I had the freedom to address that. I think that it was a moral duty for me to make sure that they got those core skills, so that they would be able to access a broad and balanced curriculum in the secondary.

I am just very worried about there being these kind of concrete bricks. If there is permissiveness and agility within it, then that is fine. I do agree with the concept of an entitlement for children to a broad and balanced curriculum.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

Q How do you think the Bill will help to stop children falling through the net? How can it help to support families, in the cost of living crisis, with the costs associated with school?

Catherine McKinnell: Those are two quite big issues. Do you want to start on cost savings, Stephen?

Stephen Morgan: As we have heard today, too many children are growing up in poverty in our country, and that is why it is important that the ministerial taskforce concludes later this year and decides what actions can be taken forward. As of 2023, one in four children were in absolute poverty, and that is why I am so pleased with the many measures that will make a big difference to children’s lives up and down the country. Take breakfast clubs, which we know are good for attainment, behaviour and attendance: they will put £450 per child, per year, back in the pockets of parents, but also bring real benefits to children. More broadly, the commitments around uniform limits will make a real difference, as we have heard today, and will save the average parent £50. A series of measures in the Bill will make a real difference in the cost of living challenges that parents up and down the country are facing. Thank you for the question.

Catherine McKinnell: On keeping children safe, I know that this is an area that you have spent a lot of time working in and have spoken about. The register of children not in school will be an important step, and has had cross-party support in this House for some time. We will also have the single unique identifier, which will be a way of making sure that information about a child does not fall through the gaps, and that children do not fall through the safety gap.

There is also a whole raft of changes that aim to ensure that multi-agency working is embedded in our approach to safeguarding, as well as measures to try to keep children within the family unit, wherever that is possible, and strengthen the approach to kinship care. We have put funding in place to support local kinship care arrangements and are trialling better information being available. There is a range of measures, and clearly this is a big priority for us in the Bill.

[Damian Hinds]

Q I am conscious that we are short of time. This Bill is really like two Bills, with the children and social care section and the schools section. Were there discussions about making it two separate Bills? You could have pressed on at all speed with the social care material, which has been around for quite a long time—some of it was in the 2022 Act. That would have enabled you to have a Green Paper, a White Paper and pre-legislative scrutiny, and perhaps to address more of the questions up front.

Catherine McKinnell: I appreciate the premise of the right hon. Gentleman’s question. I appreciate that he is very experienced in this place and that he has had the experience of being in government for quite some time, and having the opportunity to do all those things and make the necessary changes. We wanted to move as fast as we could to make the impact that children need to see, particularly in safeguarding. We also wanted to make the long thought-through changes to our school system to support our opportunity mission and break down those barriers to ensure that every child has every opportunity to succeed. Admittedly, we are not going to lose any time in making the changes that we want to see, and we have the opportunity in the parliamentary time allocated to us.

[Damian Hinds]

Ah.

Catherine McKinnell: It is very important that we use it. We are a Government on a mission, and we have a lot of things to do.

[Amanda Martin]

Q How will the Bill support local partnerships? We heard from Sir Jon Coles, the Church of England, the Catholic Education Service and others about collaboration. How will the Bill support local partnerships to work together more effectively to prevent children from falling behind?

Catherine McKinnell: My hon. Friend raises an important point, and it is very much at the heart of what we want to achieve through our changes to schools. We want to ensure that every child has a good school place; that every parent can be confident that their child will be taught by a qualified teacher within their local mainstream school wherever possible, being educated with their peers; that no vulnerable child falls through the cracks; and that we know where they are if they are not in school. We are making important changes on admissions to ensure that all the schools in a local area collaborate with their local authority on place planning, so that we can really deliver on that vision.

Qualifications Reform Review

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Janet Daby]

I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the many important contributions of the FE sector. Pay is not currently set by the pay review bodies, including for FE, and the Government do not set recommended pay in further education. With that said, my noble Friend the Minister has full knowledge of the needs and crucial role of the FE college sector.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

When the Minister’s other noble Friend—the distinguished Labour peer Lord Sainsbury—conducted his landmark review of technical and vocational qualifications, he found that they were not only multitudinous and heavily overlapping but had become divorced to a large extent from the very sectors of industry that they were supposed to serve. The overhanging qualifications reform is a massive power grab that the new Government are carrying out, creating a body called Skills England and abolishing the independent institute that oversees technical education standards. Skills England is not even a separate body; it is part of the Department for Education management structure. Under the legislation going through Parliament, the Secretary of State will take to herself the power to oversee standards in technical education. That would not be acceptable for A-levels so, as I asked in Westminster Hall the other day, how can it be possibly acceptable for T-levels? What does that say about this Government’s commitment to parity of esteem?

[Janet Daby]

I will ask my noble Friend the Minister to get back to the right hon. Gentleman on that point.

May I make a correction to what I said in my statement? Qualifications in agriculture, environment and animal care, legal, finance and accounting, business and administration and creative design will not be defunded before 2027, not 2024.

Oral Answers to Questions

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the work that he is undertaking in making his local schools aware of the opportunities that breakfast clubs present. The early adopters scheme will enable up to 750 participating schools to start providing them from April 2025 onwards. We have tripled investment in breakfast clubs following the Budget. Schools have until 20 December to apply for the scheme, and I would encourage many more to do so.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Thousands of schools are already participating in the national school breakfast club programme, including many special schools and secondary schools, but the clubs actually have a bigger effect on attendance. The Secretary of State has talked a great deal about breakfast clubs in primary schools, but what is the future for the existing clubs in those special and secondary schools?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the interest that I know—from his former roles—he takes in this issue. We are building on the existing programmes, expanding investment and opportunities, but I agree with him that we need to ensure that breakfast clubs are available to all children, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. To ensure that the roll-out is a success, some of the early adopters will be in special and alternative provision schools.

Apprenticeships and T-Levels

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Wednesday 20th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered apprenticeships and T Levels.

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Christopher.

UK productivity is well below that of the United States, Germany and France. That is not a new thing; it has been true in every year I have been alive. If we were able to fix that productivity gap, we could have higher living standards, lower tax and more tax revenue. There are multiple reasons for the gap and much academic literature has been written on it, but the level of skills in an economy is fundamental to productivity and therefore to growth. How we run our skills system is also important, because there is a cadre of young people who are less orientated towards pure academic study but have talent and flair in technical pursuits, and they deserve just the same opportunities and life chances as those who take the academic route.

In this country, although we are famous for aspects of our education system, including for our higher education—our universities—and increasingly for aspects of our school system, we are not, I am afraid, famous for technical and vocational education and training. When foreign Ministers come to Europe to look at vocational education, they tend to go to Germany, and if there is one thing we do not like in England, it is losing out to Germany.

It is right that successive Governments have been troubled by this situation and sought to fix it, but perhaps sometimes they have been a bit too quick to look for a fix. The story of our organisational infrastructure for technical and vocational provision is not one of stability. We have had industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission, and training and enterprise councils—TECs. But those TECs were different from another TEC—the Technician Education Council, which existed alongside the Business Education Council, BEC. The two would eventually merge, of course, to give us BTECs. There were national training organisations; the Learning and Skills Council; sector skills councils; the UK Commission for Employment and Skills; the Skills Funding Agency, or SFA, which would later be the ESFA—the Education and Skills Funding Agency—and, most recently, local skills improvement plans and the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

The infrastructure has been mirrored by a panoply of qualifications and awards. We have had traditional apprenticeships and then modern apprenticeships; the youth training scheme; the City & Guilds system; the technical and vocational education initiative; the National Council for Vocational Qualifications; NVQs, which are still in use; and GNVQs, which evolved into BTECs and diplomas. There were the 14 to 19 diplomas, which were not quite the same thing as the Tomlinson diplomas; the skills for life programme; and traineeships. Altogether, today, there are somewhere between 100 and 200 recognised awarding organisations, excluding those that only do apprenticeship end-point assessments.

Now, just at level 3—the equivalent to A-levels—we have the following qualifications: tech levels as well as T-levels; applied generals; level 3 ESOL; level 3 NVQ, and access to higher education diplomas. There is a level 3 award, a level 3 certificate and a level 3 diploma—or someone might prefer a level 3 national certificate or a level 3 national diploma. There is also an extended diploma, a subsidiary diploma, and a technical introductory diploma. There is no official count, but by the mid-2010s someone had counted up what they could find and said that, together with other, non-level 3 courses available to 16 to 18-year-olds, there were at least 13,000 possible qualifications that someone in that age group could do. It is not surprising that when the Independent Panel on Technical Education was created in 2015-16, it found that vocational education and training had become “over-complex”.

[Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)]

I thank the right hon. Member for securing this important debate. Some 6.9% of young people in Somerset are believed to be not in education, employment or training, which is higher than the national average of 5.5%. Does he agree that the Government should not only improve the quality of vocational education, but strengthen the careers advice and links with employers in schools and colleges, to enable more young people to get into education on the right courses?

[Damian Hinds]

Indeed—the hon. Member is absolutely right. Part of the point of careers advice is knowing which course to take and which qualification to pursue. The panel that I mentioned found that if someone was considering a career in plumbing, for example, there were 33 different qualifications that they might seek to take. It also found that in general the various qualifications were not providing the skills needed; they had become divorced from the occupations they were meant to serve, with no requirement, or only a weak requirement, to meet employers’ needs in those occupations.

The panel’s report, which came out in April 2016, became a blueprint for a major upgrade of technical and vocational education in this country. The panel was determined to address both the productivity gap and very clearly also the social justice gap, whereby some young people were being left behind. I stress that although the report was a blueprint, it was also a “redprint”: the panel was chaired by the noble Lord Sainsbury, the distinguished Labour peer. The report called for “a fundamental shift”, with

“a coherent technical education option…from levels 2…to…5”.

There would be 15 clearly defined sector routes, covering 35 different career pathways. Three of those routes would be available only through an apprenticeship; the other 12 would be available either through an apprenticeship or a college track, and there would be common standards for both. Both the apprenticeship and college-based routes would result in

“the same or equivalent technical knowledge, skills and behaviours”

to take into the workplace. The report said that this path

“needs to be clearly delineated from the academic option, as they are designed for different purposes. But, at the same time, movement between the two must be possible…in either direction”.

The report also recommended expanding the then Institute for Apprenticeships into an Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, so as to cover both apprenticeship and college tracks. It added:

“Specifying the standards…is not a role for officials in central government but for professionals working in…occupations, supported by…education professionals.”

It recommended that there should be improvements to apprenticeships and a new, largely college-based qualification, which would become known as the T-level.

With T-levels, the knowledge, skills content and required behaviours are set not by somebody at the Department of Education but by employers. There is the core technical qualification, but there is also content in English, maths and digital. Crucially, there is a 45-day industrial placement. There are also more college hours than with traditional vocational qualifications and indeed more taught hours per week than for A-levels.

For the upgrade that we needed in our country, in both productivity and opportunities available to all young people, T-levels had to become the principal college-based option—not the only option, but the principal or main college-based vocational qualification. And the T-level could not be grafted on to a market that already had thousands of qualifications; there was an incumbency advantage and even commercial interests attached to some of those. It had to replace a number—a lot—of qualifications. Gordon Brown, the former Prime Minister, has been speaking about this quite recently.

The other thing that was always going to be difficult about T-levels was finding enough industry placements. Lord Sainsbury found that we might need up to 250,000 industry placements for 17-year-olds, and that, of course, is hard to achieve. We could say that it is too hard and give up, but if we did that we would be giving up on advancing our competitiveness.

The alternative is that we change culture in our country and say to companies that if they want to be a great success in their sector, and their sector to be a great success in our country, and our whole country to be a success in the world, we all have to invest both the resource and the time in the next generation.

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

I do not disagree with the right hon. Member on that point; I just wanted to highlight that in my constituency of Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes there is an apprenticeship provider called CATCH. Local businesses have come together to invest in a brand-new welding apprenticeship facility that will deliver 1,000 apprentices over the next few years. Is that the kind of partnership working that he envisages, which works well for local communities, young people and business?

[Damian Hinds]

I am sure it is. I will come to apprenticeships in a moment, but I was just talking about industry placements in T-levels.

From speaking to young people who are doing T-levels, colleagues will know that their most popular feature is probably the fact that young people get to do a real role in a real workplace. The placements are also popular with the employers that provide T-levels: first, the employers are investing in the next generation and helping develop all the things the lack of which they sometimes complain about—soft skills and workplace skills—and secondly, the placements are the most fantastic, longest-ever job interview, when employers get to see the people who may come and work in their company over an extended period. I appeal to Ministers to carry on the great work of shouting about T-levels and talking about these great opportunities and the upgrade they represent.

There were two big changes to apprenticeships. The first ensured that there were minimum standards. Previously, as colleagues will recall, some apprenticeships were so thin and flimsy that the apprentices did not know they were on one. After minimum standards came in, apprenticeships would last at least one year and involve at least 20% of time off the job. As with T-levels, there would be an end-point assessment, which would feature standards set by employers.

The second big change was the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. That has always been controversial with some employers, but it was there to do two things. First, it raises the funds needed to pay for a big upgrade in apprenticeship provision. Secondly, it deals with the free rider problem, with which we will all be familiar: some companies in a sector have always strongly invested in young people, but three years later those young people leave to work for another employer that can offer to pay more but has not made the investment in the first place. The apprenticeship levy deals directly with that free rider problem, as economists call it, so that every sizeable company contributes properly.

The new Government plan to change the scope of the levy and to introduce two new types of apprenticeship, which it is fair to say we do not know a huge amount about: foundation apprenticeships and shorter apprenticeships. There is an argument that we already make the word “apprenticeship” do a lot of work—it covers a wide spectrum. Arguably, there are three types of development of self and training, which have different needs: someone may be a career starter, career developer or career changer, and the specifications of the courses and qualifications are different. For example, a 50-year-old who is changing career does not need to learn as many things about what it is like to enter a workplace for the first time as an 18-year-old does. In truth, only one of those types of training is what a normal member of the public associates with the word “apprentice”: we think typically of people who are young and starting out on their working journey.

It is totally legitimate to look at changing what the levy covers, and it is good to refocus on young people—career starters. It is also reasonable to say that the levy could cover some things that are not apprenticeships, such as management development or traineeships, but there is huge value in maintaining integrity around what we mean by the word “apprenticeship”, and keeping a minimum length and quantity of college or off-work content.

Whatever the Government do with the levy, they need to find a way to deal with the free rider problem. The Government will always be lobbied by companies saying, “We should be able to use the levy for this, that and the other”, but if “this, that and the other” means training that they would have paid for anyway, then the levy will not have achieved its goal. It has to be something that creates a net increase in the amount of training and development available.

That brings me to Skills England. Now, Ministers like shiny new things, and some people will always lobby for things to change. A sweet spot is found in public policy when the two coincide: Ministers get lobbied to do something, and they think they have come up with a shiny new thing that sounds like it will achieve those ends. Skills England is one of those things; I am afraid that, without major design change, it is doomed to failure. I have no doubt that plenty of people who lobbied the Government when they were in opposition said, “We need a different approach to skills. We need to think about them across Government, take the long view, listen to employers, listen to young people and have an integrated approach.” The Government have come up with this thing called Skills England, which they think will do that.

Skills England will be the 13th new skills agency in five decades. If all it took to solve our skills and productivity problem was a change in the machinery of government, do the Government not think that one of the previous 12 might already have managed it? The instinct in difficult circumstances is to break glass and reach for a quango, but Skills England is not even a quango; it is nada—not quasi-autonomous, but a non-accountable departmental agency—and there is no reason to think it will be any better at working across Government, let alone across the economy, in solving these issues.

If the Government were serious about creating something new to join together the Home Office, the Department for Business and Trade, the DFE and everybody else, they would put it in the Treasury or perhaps the Cabinet Office. They would not just make it part of the DFE management structure. Worse than that is the loss of independence compared with the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education.

There is legislation currently going through the other place that ostensibly creates Skills England, but it does no such thing. All it does is abolish the independent institute and move all of its powers into the Department for Education. The Secretary of State will now have responsibility for standards for T-levels. Imagine if that were the case for A-levels. If it is not all right for A-levels, why should it be all right for T-levels?

[Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Damian Hinds]

If the hon. Member will forgive me, I will continue.

There is also no guarantee that business will continue to be involved in setting those standards. I am afraid that public and business confidence is set to be eroded—rightly, because everybody knows that the easiest way for the Government to increase the numbers of people doing anything in education is to erode standards to get more people through.

I believe the Sainsbury report was—and still is—a good blueprint. Of course, the Government are entitled to evolve it, but they should recognise that the principles remain sound. With T-levels, it was always going to be hard to get sufficient industry placements and to overcome powerful objections that we need to change the system rather than just add to it. With apprenticeships, there will always be, as there always have been, firms that try to game the system. We can argue about what the levy should or should not cover, but it is a good thing and it needs to be designed and maintained to encourage a net increase in investment in this area and to deal with the free rider problem.

There will always be some cost and downside when the bar of minimum standards is raised, as we did. We need to remember where we started, with the need to increase productivity and have higher expectations for all in the interests of social justice. We need to maintain those minimum standards to keep apprenticeships and T-levels equivalent, with the same levels of knowledge, skills and behaviours.

Finally, the independence of the body that sets the standards, working with and for business, is key. The Government will obviously keep Skills England, but I ask the Minister to build into its design proper, full independence from her Department, and a proper, full guiding role for the businesses these occupations need to serve. I want Ministers not just to say that, but to write it into the legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

It has been a good debate. I thank everyone who took part for bringing their own perspectives. There is just one thing I want to say. We cannot legislate for parity of esteem; we can only earn it. High-quality apprenticeships and T-levels can do that, because young people know that the standards have been set by employers, and they are right for the levels necessary for success in those sectors. Crucially, to have confidence in the integrity of qualifications, they need to be set independently and, in the case of these qualifications, they need to be set with business. The Minister has an opportunity with a Bill going through Parliament at the moment. When the IfATE transfer of powers Bill comes to Committee stage in the Commons, please will the Government table an amendment to write that independence and the involvement of business into law?

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered apprenticeships and T Levels.

Educational Opportunities

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I commend the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) for securing this broad-ranging debate on barriers to education opportunities. There are many things that we could talk about, but in 150 seconds I will restrict myself to three things.

The first is about free school meals. Labour Members said some pretty terrible things in 2018 about what we would do to eligibility for free school meals. It did not happen. In reality, the number of children eligible has risen from about one in six in 2010 to one in three most recently, and that is despite employment, the number of children growing up in workless households and the number of people in work and on low pay having come right down. What will the Government do to keep entitlement at around the same level as now even after universal credit roll-out has concluded?

Secondly, I want to ask about the holiday activities and food programme, which has been successful for young people. I am sure the new Government would not dream of cutting it, but a lot of local areas—I know that one in Yorkshire has been discussing the matter very recently—want some reassurance and some forward visibility about what will happen with the HAF programme after the end of this year.

Finally, I wanted to ask about breakfast clubs. The Government have talked a great deal about primary school breakfast clubs and people are quite disappointed about the scale of what they have heard so far. The total percentage of primary schools in England covered by the first phase is, I think, 4.5%. They also talk about breakfast clubs as if they were something novel, whereas in reality there are thousands in schools across the country already. So when they say they need to move slowly because they need to have a pilot, what does the Minister think needs to be piloted? Is it the type of bowl or the angle of pour of the cornflakes, or is it just that they are trying slow down the roll-outs?

Most importantly, I want to ask about secondary schools and special schools. Among the thousands of breakfast clubs, including those supported by the national school breakfast programme, are those in secondary schools and special schools. If we are talking about impacting something like attendance, we can have more of an impact with breakfast clubs at secondary school. Again, I am sure that the Government will not think about cutting that programme—it would be unthinkable to do so—but what will they do? When will they give visibility to secondary schools and special schools about how they will grow the support for breakfast clubs in schools in the future?

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I have so much to get through that I am afraid I cannot.

Skills policy has too often been made in isolation, leading to a system that is confusing for employers and individuals, and that does not lead to the right jobs for our population. Skills shortage vacancies in England more than doubled between 2017 and 2022, from 226,500 to 531,200. Too few young people—indeed, people of all ages—have been able to gain the benefits of a quality post-16 education. Those figures are shocking.

We need to do so much more to ensure that people do not face unemployment, low wages and poor health outcomes. The lack of a clear plan has led to widespread skill shortages in areas such as construction, manufacturing, hospitality, information and communication, healthcare and social care. That is why meeting the skill needs of the next decade is central to delivering the Government’s five missions: economic growth, opportunity for all, a stronger NHS, safer streets and clean energy. We aim to create a clear, flexible, high-quality skills system that supports people of all ages, breaks down barriers to opportunity and drives economic growth.

We have not stood still. Last month’s Budget included an investment of an additional £300 million in further education to ensure that young people develop the skills they need. It also included £950 million of skills capital funding, including £300 million to ensure that college estates are in good condition so they meet students’ learning needs. We have also commenced a curriculum and assessment review, which is now in full swing with roadshows up and down the country. It will deliver a curriculum that is rich in knowledge, strong in skills and led by evidence. We have announced the youth guarantee, which will help to ensure that young people have the opportunity to acquire the skills that they need.

We will reform the apprenticeship levy into a growth and skills levy to deliver greater flexibility for both learners and employers. As a first step we will introduce foundation apprenticeships to give more young people a foot in the door. The new foundation apprenticeships will support clear progression pathways into further work-based training and sustained employment. We will support and fill the pipeline of new talent that employers need. We are investing £40 million to support the development and delivery of foundation apprenticeships, as well as apprenticeships of a shorter duration that will provide further flexibility for employers, as so many have called for.

We have also listened to feedback about qualifications; concerns were expressed about the rapid pace of reforms from the previous Government, about the quality of qualifications and about how they do not always serve students well. This Government are determined to do better—and indeed we will. We have therefore announced a short-term internal review of qualifications reform, which clearly signals our intention to balance the range of concerns and to provide clarity in the qualifications landscape. We believe that this is the best way to support students, unlock opportunity, harness talent and drive growth.

We have introduced Skills England in shadow form. It will ensure we have the highly trained workforce needed to deliver national, regional and local skills for the next decade, aligned with the upcoming industrial strategy. Skills England will ensure that there is a comprehensive choice of apprenticeships, training and technical qualifications for individuals and employers to access. Skills England will ensure that the skills system is clear, and that both young people and older adults can navigate it, strengthening career pathways into jobs across the economy. It will increase the quality and quantity of skills development in the workplace by providing an authoritative assessment of national and regional skills needs in the economy, now and in the future.

Moving to the school rebuilding programme, this Government have increased next year’s capital allocation to improve school buildings to £2.1 billion, which is £300 million more than this year. We have also committed to £1.4 billion to support the current school rebuilding programme to deliver 518 projects across England.

Many issues have been raised about children with special educational needs and disabilities and the anxieties of their parents. On reform, this Government’s ambition is that all children and young people with SEND will receive the right support to succeed in their education and as they move into adult life. We are committed to improving inclusiveness and expertise in mainstream schools, and to ensuring that special school provision continues to meet children’s most complex needs. That will restore parents’ trust, as they will know that their child is getting the support they desperately need. We will work with the sector, as it is essential that we join our valued partners in that shared vision.

There were questions about free school meals and ensuring that children are eligible. We have a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity, and to confront child poverty. The continued provision of free school meals to disadvantaged children plays an important role in that. The Government spend around £1.5 billion annually on free lunches for over 3 million pupils. As with all Government programmes, we will keep our approach open and continue to review it. It remains our ambition that no child should go hungry.

We are also doing a child poverty review. The new child poverty ministerial taskforce will drive cross-Government action on child poverty, starting by overseeing the development of an ambitious child poverty strategy, which will be published next spring. The taskforce publication of 23 October, “Tackling Child Poverty: Developing Our Strategy”, sets out our framework for how the strategy will be developed, harnessing all available levers to deliver a reduction in child poverty in this Parliament as part of our ambitious 10-year strategy, which addresses its root causes.

On breakfast clubs, we will remove barriers to opportunities by ensuring that every primary school pupil, no matter their circumstance, is well prepared for school. From April 2025, free breakfast clubs will be available for up to 750 early adopters ahead of the national roll-out. Early adopters will allow us to identify and tackle barriers to implementing the full breakfast club roll-out. That is the first step in our commitment to enable breakfast clubs in all primary schools.

[Damian Hinds]

Before the Minister moves on, my main question on breakfast clubs was about what happens to the national school breakfast programme for secondary and special schools. We have heard a lot about primary schools, but we have not heard much about secondary and special schools in disadvantaged areas. Is she in a position to tell us a little more about that?

[Janet Daby]

This Government are committed to tackling child poverty. As I have already outlined as regards the poverty taskforce, many of the issues and areas are continuing to be reviewed and worked out. We are determined to bring down child poverty. On the specific areas the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, more information will be coming, but I am afraid he will have to be patient, as we had to be patient for the past 14 years.

I also add that through the children’s wellbeing Bill, which has been mentioned, the Government will look to introduce further strategies for improving the outcomes for children and young people, and to make the reform and changes that we need. The Bill will be introduced, as parliamentary time allows, and we appreciate Members’ patience.

Time is quickly moving on and running out. I could say so much more about so many other areas that were mentioned, but I am afraid I will have to move to a close. We will try to respond where we can, but I ask Members, please, to continue to write in and ask questions. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe for securing the debate on such an important matter and I hope the House appreciates that I made every attempt to respond.