Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O’Brien]

A fantastic person—all good. It is like having NEDs—non-executive directors—in a Department; it is good to have external people. As I noted, however, the CEO of the organisation is literally not a civil servant; it is a job-share civil servant. They are people who currently work in the Department doing post-16 skills, so I am not sure about idea that this is an independent body. Can the hon. Lady tell me where Skills England is based? Physically, where is it located? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Is it in Sanctuary Buildings, by any chance? Sanctuary Buildings is none other than the headquarters of the DFE. Is this, in fact a desk in an open plan office that is part of the DFE?

The Government can bring in good people. It is good to bring in good people. The DFE has some good NEDs, by the way, but that is not the same as having an independent institution. That is why Lord Blunkett and other Labour peers are warning that the Government are making a mistake. Those are their words, not ours. Lord Blunkett has a lot more experience of those things than me.

All I would say to the Minister and to hon. Members on the Government Benches is, instead of overturning what peers have put into the Bill, this might be one of those times when it is more sensible to listen to people on their own side, people with some serious grey hairs and a lot of experience, people in their own party, who are advising them that they are making a mistake here. Instead of overturning what they have done, the Government should allow it to stand. The criticisms being made by people in the industry and people with experience in education and skills are serious. I hope that the Government will listen to them, rather than simply overturning what they have done and ignoring them.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

We are debating clauses 1 to 3 stand part and schedules 1 to 3. The Minister, in her opening remarks, talked a lot about the intention to create Skills England, how it will operate and so on. That is not in clauses 1 to 3.

The Bill is all about transferring functions from the independent Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to the Secretary of State in central Government. Colleagues may have seen the, as ever, helpful and pithy descriptive notes from the House of Commons Library. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which will transfer statutory functions from the institute to the Secretary of State. Clause 2 introduces schedule 2, which will allow the Secretary of State to make schemes for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the institute. Clause 3 will abolish the institute and introduce a schedule 3, which makes consequential amendments to the 2009 Act and other Acts.

The history of this sector is the history of many changes in the machinery of government and the creation of many quangos. There have been 12 in the past five decades. This one will be lucky—no doubt—13. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister helped us with some of the history and some of those previous bodies. I have a slightly longer list.

We have had industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission, and the training and enterprise councils known as TECs—but those TECs were not the same as another type of TEC, the Technical Education Council, which existed alongside the Business Education Council or BEC in the 1970s. The two would merge in the 1980s to give us, of course, BTEC, the Business and Technology Education Council. 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 become the ESFA, or Education and Skills Funding Agency, and most recently LSIPs—local skills improvement partnerships—and IfATE.

[Pam Cox]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I have missed one!

[Pam Cox]

The right hon. Member has missed one: the Statute of Artificers 1563, known as the Statute of Apprenticeships. We have been trying to do this for many centuries, and it is only right that each generation tries to do so. We are still not getting it right for our young people, hence the need for speed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I am very grateful; who knows where this conversation might take us? Last time I looked, 1563 was not in the past five decades. The hon. Lady says that every generation should try to reform, and that may well be true. I do not know how many generations she calculates there are in a 50-year period, but as sure as anything, there are not 12, let alone 13.

Those many bodies over the years have been mirrored by a true panoply of qualifications and awards: traditional apprenticeships; modern apprenticeships; the YOP or youth opportunities programme; the YTS, or youth training scheme; City and Guilds; the TVEI, or training and vocational education initiative; the NCVQ or National Council for Vocational Qualifications; NVQs or national vocational qualifications, which are still in use; GNVQs, or general national vocational qualifications, which became BTECs and diplomas; the 14-to-19 diplomas, which are not quite the same thing as the Tomlinson diplomas; Skills for Life; traineeships; and all together between 100 and 200 recognised awards and organisations, excluding those that do only end-point assessments.

[Peter Swallow]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

I have not forgotten another one, have I?

[Peter Swallow]

I simply wish to say to the right hon. Member that it was not too long ago when he was on the Government Benches and presiding over the very system in question. As he has helpfully elucidated for everyone, we are dealing with an incredibly fractured landscape, which is precisely the challenge that the Bill proposes to address. In all frankness, given the fractured nature of the landscape, which he eloquently identified, should he not support any attempt to bring it together?

[Damian Hinds]

Yes, but the Bill does not do that, and if the hon. Member thinks it does, I am afraid he is mistaken.

Some years ago, I used to sit on the Government Benches and was a Minister at the Department for Education, as the hon. Member said, and on many occasions I have had a close interest in these areas. There was a cross-party coming together in the early to mid-2010s, which resulted in the Sainsbury report. The noble Lord Sainsbury, as the hon. Member may know, is a Labour peer who devoted a great deal of his life and the work of his foundation, the Gatsby Foundation, to trying to improve something that in this country, historically and by international comparison, we have not been tremendously good at: technical and vocational education and training. The Independent Panel on Technical Education, which convened in 2015 to 2016, took a broad overview of exactly the fractured landscape that the hon. Member talked about. By the way, I have missed out the page of my notes where I was going to go through all the qualifications that someone could do at level 3 to age 18, which is a similarly sized list.

[Laurence Turner (Birmingham Northfield) (Lab)]

Will the right hon. Member give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I had probably better go on a little, but I would love to hear from the hon. Gentleman. I promise that the Committee will have a chance so to do.

Unsurprisingly, that panel found that the technical and vocational education and training landscape in this country was over-complex. The example of plumbing was given, with 33 different qualifications that a young person could decide to do. Moreover, the panel found that the system was not providing for the skills that the country needed and that the technical and vocational education and training had become “divorced” from the occupations that they were there to serve, with no or weak requirements to meet employers’ actual needs.

The Sainsbury report, published in April 2016, set out a blueprint for what would be a major upgrade and simplification of technical and vocational education and training, to address the productivity gap in this country—we talk about this sometimes; there has been a productivity gap every year I have been alive, and I am in my mid-50s today—and indeed a major social justice gap. Although it was a blueprint, it was also a redprint because it had cross-party support. It called for a fundamental shift in how we did technical and vocational education, with coherent routeways from level 2 through to level 5 along 15 different sector routes, three of which would be apprenticeship only, through to 35 different pathways mapped as specific occupations—specific needs of the economy and companies.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I, too, pay tribute to the work of Lord Sainsbury. Those points, which were inserted into what were then called the Sainsbury routes, drew on the experience of the best technical systems in the world, particularly those in Germany and Switzerland. What characterises those systems is the unbelievable level of employer ownership and the incredible constancy of the organisations, which are external to Government, that run them. The Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung has been around for, I think, 50 or 60 years. Are those not the characteristics of a good system—employer ownership and independence—and the things that Lord Sainsbury was talking about?

[Damian Hinds]

My hon. Friend is right. If we take the full etymology, we can go back a lot further, to the creation of guilds centuries ago, which evolved into the modern system.

[Laurence Turner]

I have enjoyed the right hon. Gentleman’s recapitulation of the history. In the last Parliament, I attended meetings of the UK shipbuilding skills taskforce, which was sponsored by the Department for Education, and considered these matters in respect of that industry quite closely. Employers and employee representatives were unanimous that the GCSE entry standard requirements should be removed in that industry, but the inclusion of that recommendation was blocked because, we were given to understand, it would not be supported by DFE Ministers. Does he share my concern that the independence of the current system is more claimed than real?

[Damian Hinds]

No, I do not, but there is a definition of what an apprenticeship is. There are perfectly good reasons to have all manner of training courses, including entry-level ones, that do important things, but they are not apprenticeships. The shadow Minister talked about Germany. In our country, the minimum length of an apprenticeship is shorter than the typical length of one in Germany. The time off the job—the time in college—is shorter. As I say, we can add on other things, but we cannot stretch the definition of what an apprenticeship is indefinitely. I may come back to that later.

On the face of it, this is a simple Bill—it has 13 pages and is on a simple subject—so it should be fairly easy for a Committee to dispatch in a couple of Thursdays. I have no doubt that Government Members will take the opportunity to make speeches on this subject, and I am sure those will be rather good. Members may make what could be described as great speeches and what they say will be largely unarguable. I fancy that we may hear the word “mission” from them, perhaps even more than once. They will talk about the importance of skills in our economy, investing in the next generation, valuing every single person for what they can do and the value of joining-up across Government Departments.

That will all be correct, but it will be largely beside the point. To turn a great speech that includes those things into a truly outstanding speech in this Committee, they would have to explain why taking away the independence of the body overseeing the system that upholds the standards would make those entirely laudable and shared goals more likely to come about. I know of no reason to believe that it will, but I am keen to hear from anybody who has such an idea.

In the Labour manifesto, there were some very laudable aims. It said that it wanted to empower

“local communities to develop the skills people need”

and to

“put employers at the heart of our skills system.”

Labour said that it would

“establish Skills England to bring together business, training providers and unions with national and local government”,

in order to deliver its industrial strategy. The manifesto said:

“Skills England will formally work with the Migration Advisory Committee to make sure training in England accounts for the overall needs of the labour market”.

It mentioned a commitment to

“devolving adult skills funding to Combined Authorities…alongside a greater role in supporting people into work”,

and Labour will

“transform Further Education colleges into specialist Technical Excellence Colleges.”

There are different ways that those aims could be achieved, and I would argue that there are better ways. The Government could, for example, keep IfATE as the standard-setting and upholding body, and create a new, small body, possibly inside the Treasury, to assess the needs of the economy and allocate funds accordingly. They could also strengthen the powers of local skills improvement partnerships, working closely with devolved authorities and mayors, to ensure that what is delivered at a local level in individual colleges matches what the local economy needs. I would have probably chosen that architecture, but plenty of other variations are possible.

To be clear, the Bill does not do any of those things. It simply abolishes the independent body that convenes employers to set the standards and then uphold them, and it hands those powers to the Secretary of State. It does nothing else—I say that, but it is not totally clear to me what it does to Ofqual, and we may debate that when we get to clause 8. I suggest that the Bill presents two fundamental questions: first, about independence; and secondly, about who should set the expectations and standards in any given sector of work—should it be the employers in that sector or somebody else? We will come to that debate when we reach clauses 4 and 5.

Ultimately, this is about whether we believe enough in the phrase “parity of esteem” to do the things necessary to achieve it. As I said in the House the other day, parity of esteem is not something one can just “assert”, and it cannot be legislated for. We cannot pass a law to give something greater esteem. Esteem is in the eye of the esteemer and it can only be earned. In part, that comes from knowing that the qualifications of the technical and vocational strand in our country are just as rigorous and have the same integrity as the academic strand.

By the way, independence is not totally a left/right issue. There are plenty of people on the right of politics who share the Minister’s desire not to have independent bodies. There is a general “anti the quangos” strand, and I have some sympathy for that. By the way, a debate is going on at the moment about removing the independence of the national health service and bringing it into the Department of Health and Social Care. That can be argued both ways. On the one hand, it will be harder for the NHS to do some things, particularly what they call reconfigurations, when they become subject to political pressure. On the other hand, it can be argued that there should of course be direct control from a democratically elected Government over the most important institution in our country. However, I think an independent body for upholding standards in education is in a separate bracket.

[Neil O’Brien]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the context in which this is happening matters? We are talking about getting rid of a prestigious and independent institution, and at the same time, T-levels will not do what Lord Sainsbury hoped they will do. They were supposed to replace the existing standards but, in fact, they will be just another thing in the alphabet soup. We are seeing apprenticeships being made shorter again, and we are going back towards shelf-stacking types of apprenticeships. The mood music is already pretty ominous, and that is against the backdrop of Ministers getting more power by taking this back into the Department and abolishing independence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an issue?

[Damian Hinds]

I do. Funnily enough, my hon. Friend anticipates my next paragraph. Any Government rightly want more young people to pass their GCSEs, get good A-levels, or start and complete apprenticeships. The truth is that the quickest way to have more people getting any qualification is to make it a bit easier, and there is plenty of history of that, I am afraid. The entry requirements or length could be reduced, the pass mark could be made lower, or the credits that count towards the outcome could be changed. One of the reasons we have independent bodies setting standards is so that that temptation cannot be succumbed to, and crucially, everybody can see that it cannot, so they can have total faith in the standards being upheld.

Essentially, the rationale for why there is an independent Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is the same one as why the Chancellor sets fiscal rules, or why Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent: it is specifically for the Government to keep themselves within certain tram lines. We do this for academic qualifications. I have asked the Minister this question I think three times, and I will ask it again today: it would not be acceptable, would it, to say, “I’m going to put the pass mark, standards and specification for A-levels in the hands of a Government Minister”? If that is not acceptable for A-levels, how can it possibly be acceptable for T-levels? And we still say that we believe in parity of esteem.

In the good, possibly great, speeches that we will hear from Government Members, one other thing they might say—in fact, they have already started to say it; they pre-empted me—is that apprenticeship starts have fallen since the peak, but that under this Government, they will rise. Well, of course they will rise. If we look at the time series over the last decade of apprenticeship starts, we are not comparing apples with apples; we are comparing apples with oranges, because we had major changes in what counts as an apprenticeship, with the move from frameworks to standards as well as the minimum duration and minimum time off the job.

In discussing the overall numbers, we should also mention that the falls were in the intermediate level and that there were rises in the advanced level, and especially in higher-level apprenticeships. If the specification is reduced, of course that will increase the numbers. To be fair, the Government are not waiting for Skills England. They have already been doing this, by bringing the minimum length down from 12 months to eight months. They have also announced what they are calling foundation apprenticeships, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what those are—they sound a bit like traineeships, but let us hear it—and crucially, whether they will count towards the number of apprenticeships that are being undertaken in the country.

Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (Second sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 13th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Christopher. I would like to express Liberal Democrat support for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston. They address a critical weakness of the Bill, namely the lack of any concrete requirement for the Secretary of State to engage meaningfully with employers or industry bodies when preparing standards or apprenticeship assessment plans.

Although the current system is far from perfect, one strength of that system lies in its connection to industry needs. Employers understand better than anyone else the skills required for their sectors, and their involvement is essential to maintain the credibility and relevance of standards and assessment plans. Without those safeguards, there is a risk that over time the standards and assessment plans could become disconnected from workplace realities, and that would undermine the value of apprenticeships and technical qualifications for both employers and learners. There really should not be a problem with maintaining that link, and that is why we support the amendments.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It would be difficult to overstate the centrality of employer involvement in setting standards for technical and vocational qualifications. Earlier I mentioned Lord Sainsbury’s report and its finding that the then system of qualifications and courses had become “divorced” from the occupations that it was meant to serve. Several things are different about T-levels, compared with their predecessor qualifications. There is more time in college. There is English and maths and digital, alongside the core vocational discipline.

When we talk to young people, however, they talk about two real differentiating, distinguishing factors that motivated them to do T-levels. The first is the industrial placement—nine weeks of actual work in an actual workplace—which also appeals very strongly to employers, because it is like a nine-week job interview. It is a fantastic way to see people coming through. Employers are investing in the next generation, but they are also getting to figure out which of the next generation they most want in their business. It is a way to instil so-called soft skills—there is nothing soft about soft skills—which are sometimes called employability skills. When employers talk about the education system and about people who are taking their first job, the thing they complain about most is the lack of such development, and all that can be helped during the industrial placement.

The second distinguishing factor that people talk about is that they know that T-level standards have been designed by those that they want to go and work for. They have been designed by leading employers in the sector, and they have to be kept up to date.

Clause 4 says that the Secretary of State may herself prepare standards, instead of a “group of persons”. It is worth dwelling on that. I am sure everybody knows this, but “group of persons” is a funny old phrase, because in this context it means employers. The clause says that the Secretary of State may insert herself into the process instead of that group of persons if she is

“satisfied that it would be more appropriate”.

The same is true for clause 5, on assessment plans.

When the Bill was debated in the other place, Government amendments were made to try to calm concerns and answer some of the questions that were raised. Lords amendments 3 and 6—the Government amendments—appear here as clauses 4(5) and clause 5(5). They state that Ministers will publish something about the things that the Secretary of State takes into account in making a judgment about whether she, rather than the group of persons—employers—will set the standards.

The suggestion from Ministers is that that would be interpreted in a very minimalist way. I am not doubting that, but at the moment it is only a suggestion, so we do not know. In other words, the Secretary of State would supplant businesses and employers only in the case of something minor—I say “minor”, but it may be an important thing—in its effect on the standard, such as a change in the regulation. I am still a little nonplussed, because I do not know why we would not want employers to be involved in working out what even a change in regulation would mean for what somebody doing this qualification would learn and how they would go about it.

Will the Minister tell us what reason there could be for not wanting employers to be involved in setting those standards? Does she perhaps have a mountain of evidence showing hold-ups in standards because all these regulatory changes have had to be reflected in standards for qualifications and it has been impossible to do so?

As my hon. Friend the shadow Minister said, in the case of rapidly changing occupations, it might be necessary for the Secretary of State to sign off changes so that they can happen quickly. But the most rapidly changing occupations and sectors—things such as advanced electronics or artificial intelligence—are probably the last ones for which we would want to say, “Let’s take employers out of the equation and let Government make the changes.” Generally speaking, employers are much quicker at spotting the changes that are needed and pushing for them.

Amendments 3 and 5, in the name of my hon. Friend the shadow Minister, specify that the group of persons should include

“an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”

That seems a very sensible and almost unarguable proposition. Amendments 4 and 6, in my hon. Friend’s name, require the body to take account of the needs and interests of both employer and employee. I was trying to imagine whether, if we were having this debate in a committee room of the Bundestag, we would really be debating whether the remit of the group of persons should include considering the needs of both employer and employee; and whether leading employers from those sectors should be included in the design of the qualifications. I suggest not.

[Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Through this Bill, we are making a small number of targeted improvements that enable flexibility and support employers to engage in the design of standards in an appropriate way, by focusing their time and effort where it is most needed. Clause 4 amends a requirement for occupational standards to be prepared by a group of persons, by making it subject to a power for the Secretary of State to create and update standards in circumstances where it is appropriate to do so. Clause 5 does the same in regard to the preparation of apprenticeship assessment plans.

I can assure hon. Members that the default position will remain that in the majority of cases, groups of persons will prepare standards and apprenticeship assessment plans. Only when the Secretary of State is satisfied that it is more appropriate for them to prepare a standard or assessment plan than for a group of persons to prepare it will the Secretary of State do so. To ensure transparency, the Secretary of State will publish information about matters that they will take into account when making the decision to prepare a standard or assessment plan without a group of persons.

[Damian Hinds]

Why not just do that now? How hard is it to figure out the list of criteria that might weigh on the Secretary of State’s mind? Why must we have a statement about a future statement? Why can the Government not say now what those criteria would be, before the Bill completes its passage through the House of Commons?

[Janet Daby]

As I progress, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will understand more about why we have chosen this direction of travel. My understanding is that this is a response to an amendment from the Lords, and the Secretary of State is being as transparent and open as possible during the process. As I continue to speak, the right hon. Gentleman will understand why—

[Damian Hinds]

I may or may not.

[Janet Daby]

Indeed. I will endeavour to explain why a statement now is not the most appropriate thing. It is likely to be appropriate for the Secretary of State to use the power to prepare a standard or assessment plan in scenarios where using a group would be disproportionately onerous; where it would be unnecessary, because only simple corrections were required; or where it could create undue delays. That might include creating or updating standards to align with industry-recognised qualifications or statutory requirements.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

That is exactly the point I was making. In some instances, the Government can say, “Look, there is already this formal official third party”—perhaps a royal society or some part of the medical profession—“so we do not need this.” I can see why the Government would write that into legislation, but Ministers’ intent clearly goes beyond minor amendments and beyond instances where there is that other group, to instances where they will proceed without drawing up a group of people, in the interests of time or because it is a new and dynamic field. It is precisely because the Government have not defined the circumstances up front that I am keen to put our amendment 4 to a vote. I want to encourage Ministers to think more carefully about how—perhaps in the framework or elsewhere—they might, in response to the Lords amendment, more tightly define the circumstances in which they will, and more importantly will not, use the ability to go it alone. There is definitely a risk of politics getting in the way of good process and of mistakes being made that we will live to regret.

[Damian Hinds]

Even for highly regulated occupations and professions, there is still the question of how to transpose that into a set of standards for, say, an apprenticeship. The question then is: who is the person, or who are the people, best placed to work that out? I am not saying that it is not necessarily Ministers, but I have not heard anything slam-dunk convincing that it is Ministers, rather than the professional body.

[Neil O’Brien]

Sometimes professional bodies overlap, even in the medical profession. When I was a Health Minister, I was acutely aware of that. For example, there are two different ways to become a dentist in this country—there are two different professional bodies that can accredit someone. Were there to be a dispute between them, it might well be sensible to convene a group of persons. I am sympathetic to at least the argument that where we have a big professional body, that is less of a problem, but the problem is that this is not limited to just those instances.

[Damian Hinds]

Unsurprisingly, my hon. Friend makes a very good point. More generally, in legislation one obviously tries to make language as tight as possible, but subtleties in language and meaning still matter in how it gets interpreted. The way the clause is drafted—that the

“Secretary of State may prepare a standard if satisfied that it would be more appropriate”—

does not sound like a tiny number of exceptional cases. It sounds like a judgment that could be made in every case: “Do I think it is more appropriate that I do it?”, or “Do I think it is more appropriate that we get somebody else to do it?” I just ask the Minister if the Government have considered using a different formulation in the wording. It could be something like, “That each standard must be prepared by a group of persons and then approved by the Secretary of State, unless it is necessary to do otherwise for the efficient operation or continuity of those courses and those qualifications.”

[Janet Daby]

The default position will be for a group of persons, and that will always be the default position of the Secretary of State. The reason for that would be to make factual corrections, drawing on—[Interruption.] Hon. Members have mentioned this as well. Creating new standards would also be necessary in emerging occupations where there is sufficient high-quality evidence that training would be required but the occupation is not yet at a point of maturity, and where employers are able to invest sufficient time to produce the standard in the first instance, as well as for straightforward adjustments in knowledge, skills and behaviours.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I want hon. Members to imagine a hypothetical scenario in which there is a future Government unrelated to this one. Let us say that that hypothetical future Government have passed a Budget that is a bit of a turkey, and it has not done good things to the economy. That hypothetical Government are taking a bit of money out of apprenticeships to spend it on other things, which is giving that Government a bit of a problem. That hypothetical future Government might—because unlike the current one, they do not have good intentions—be tempted to try to prop up apprenticeship numbers, and numbers relating to other technical qualifications, by debasing standards. It would be a problem for that hypothetical future Government to have those independent examinations that clause 7 is getting rid of, because independent third parties would object to the debasement of standards. I will not labour the point.

Clause 7 would amend the Apprenticeships, Skills, Children and Learning Act 2009 to remove the requirement for independent third parties to examine occupational standards or apprenticeship assessment plans before approval. Once again, the Secretary of State—there she goes again—would have the power to make such an arrangement. The policy document explains that the clause would mean that the position on third-party examinations would change from being obligatory to being optional, so clause 7 would make it possible for no third-party examination of a standard or an apprenticeship assessment plan to be undertaken at all.

Once again, it is DFE maximalism and a move away from a super-rigorous, employer-led system. We want the technical education system to be like the Deutschmark rather than the Weimar currency, right? We want it to be like the gold coin that can be bitten down on. We want everyone to know that it is really good. All those things that might seem inconsequential or annoying to DFE officials are there for a reason. That is why there is independent assessment, and once again, it is being got rid of.

I will now turn to clause 8, which was the subject of great confusion and endless inquiry in the other place, with lots of very knowledgeable and learned peers trying to understand what the Government’s intent was, what would be going on, and what the point of it was. I have read it all several times and I am not sure we really ever got to the bottom of it. Perhaps the Minister will help us to get the bottom of some questions about it today. Clause 8 amends the 2009 Act to specify that, when the Secretary of State deems it appropriate, Ofqual would have the discretion to exercise its accreditation power for technical education qualifications.

In the other place, the Minister gave the example that:

“the Secretary of State may deem it appropriate to ask Ofqual to consider whether imposing an accreditation requirement on the qualifications in question could help maintain their quality and signal to the wider system that they are broadly commensurate with other accredited qualifications in terms of rigour. For example, the Secretary of State could use this power in instances where it is important to ensure that students who opt into and successfully complete high-quality technical education qualifications are in no way disadvantaged as compared to their peers who pursue academic qualifications.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC122.]

That raises a number of questions. At present, we have a guarantee of quality through a legally independent institute with a very high level of employer ownership. If we are worried that, under this new system, users will require additional reassurance, that begs the question of why we are making this change. More practically, if some, but not all, technical qualifications will be accredited by Ofqual, and so will have that status, what impact will that have on perceptions of all the others that do not have that status?

The Skills Minister in the Lords talked about this provision being needed to show that high-quality technical education qualifications are equivalent to academic ones. There will now be this third category of technical qualifications, which are the really good ones that are Ofqual-accredited, so what are the other ones? It seems to me, although they do not say this, that the qualification that Ministers have in mind is probably T-levels, and I do not know quite why they are not spitting that out. Peers did not, I am afraid, get to the bottom of this question, but I hope we can today. What type of qualifications are Ministers really thinking of using for this? Why we would suddenly need this now, once we move from IfATE to Skills England, in a way that we did not before? Will we not end up creating two tiers of technical qualifications, where some are Ofqual-approved and others are not? Will there not be a perverse consequence from that?

[Damian Hinds]

Clauses 7 and 8 are grouped, and I am sure there is a reason for that, but it strikes me that they are quite different, and I want to say a word about both.

Clause 7 is about examination by independent third parties, which I think gives an opportunity to also talk about the overall principle of having independent evaluation of standards and making sure they are up to scratch. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes asked a question earlier, and we did not have the documentation to hand at the time, but I did not want to leave it hanging in the air. She asked specifically about whether the words that my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, the shadow Minister, had used represented the exact phrase from the 2015 Ofsted report on the then apprenticeships regime. Helpfully, I have the precise words:

“Inspectors found that in a third of the 45 providers visited, apprenticeships did not provide sufficient, high-quality training that stretched the apprentices and improved their capabilities. Inspectors observed, for example, apprentices in the food production, retail and care sectors who were simply completing their apprenticeship by having existing low-level skills, such as making coffee, serving sandwiches or cleaning floors, accredited. While these activities are no doubt important to the everyday running of the businesses, as apprenticeships they do not add enough long-term value to the individual companies or tackle skills shortages effectively.

Some learners on low-level, low-quality programmes were unaware that they were even on an apprenticeship. As suggested by some learners during the survey, a question needs to be asked: are these apprenticeships worthy of the name?”

I mention that for two reasons. First, this was a question that came up. Secondly, it is very important not only that we pay close attention to this position at any one moment in time, but that we create a system that is self-regulating and that does not allow for standards to be eroded. Independence of the body setting the standards and independent third-party checking of the standards alongside leading employers, who will benefit from employing these people, is the surest way of doing that.

Clause 7 and the question about independent third parties examining occupational standards or apprenticeship assessments is a repeat of a debate we had on one of the earlier clauses. The probing arguments and challenges from us are the same as they were then. The Government say that third-party examination is not necessary in some sectors because, for example, in highly regulated occupations, the standard required is obvious—or, as the Minister said in the other place, because

“an external review would be nugatory.”

Is there not still some value in independent verification of that? And, if there is going to be verification, are not those in the sector the people best-placed to do it?

Let me turn to clause 8. It is difficult, because in this place one does not want to reveal not knowing something, but I am nonplussed by this clause because, to be honest, I really do not know what is going on. The clause is about Ofqual and about why, and in what circumstances, it may accredit a technical qualification if the Secretary of State says that it is all right for it to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said it seemed most likely that the Government have in mind T-levels, and asked whether they would just spit that out. That is one possibility. My worry is the opposite—actually, let us call it a question, not a worry, and make it a neutral term.

Ofqual already has a role in regulating T-levels—I was just reading the Ofqual page about how it is regulating the technical qualification element of T-levels. Now that the Government are saying that Ofqual can do that—if the Secretary of State says it is okay—does that mean that Ofqual might stop doing that, or that its approach for T-levels will be used for some other qualifications? That would not necessarily be invalid, but it would be a move away from the vision of Lord Sainsbury, who wanted a streamlining and simplification, and a broader understanding of technical and vocational qualifications, so that there would be an apprenticeship route and there would be a college-based route. Of course, there will always be some particularly specialist qualifications or students with special needs, for example, but for the majority of cases, the college-based route—these 15 routes—would be the T-level.

I wonder if, buried in this difficult-to-penetrate text, there is something that the Committee really needs to understand, but which, right now, I do not.

[Janet Daby]

I want to emphasise that no one is seeking to erode standards. We are seeking to improve the skills system. We recognise the need to move things on and to quicken up the process. This Government are entirely committed to doing that. We recognise the skills gaps and the need to ensure that people have the skills needed to get into the employment that they need. This is a Government who have a mission for growth and breaking down barriers to opportunities.

In clauses 7 and 8 we are seeking to move along the processes to make sure our system is more flexible and agile and can respond to markets, businesses and employers. In clause 8, in terms of Ofqual, we are not trying to create a two-tier system. The Bill would remove what is an unnecessary and blanket ban on the accreditation of technical education qualifications. There are of course then options for using the new flexibilities in accreditation, which will need to be considered in the interests of employers and learners. The Secretary of State will carefully consider when it may be appropriate for Ofqual to accredit technical qualifications.

With regard to clause 7, in certain circumstances, obtaining independent third-party examination of new standards and assessment plans is unnecessary or duplicative, wasting time and resources; we may need to move things on.

[Damian Hinds]

If there is a blanket ban on Ofqual regulating technical qualifications, can the Minister explain why there is a page on gov.uk—unless someone has hacked it—entitled “Information on how Ofqual is regulating the technical qualification component of T Levels”?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the right hon. Member for raising that. Through clause 8, we are making sure that Ofqual can accredit technical qualifications where the Secretary of State deems it appropriate.

I thank Members for their contributions. Clauses 7 and 8 are essential in ensuring that Skills England has the flexibility to respond nimbly to an evolving skills system, and I therefore urge the Committee to support them.

--- Later in debate ---

We have gone through the grind of years of standards setting and years of trying to mobilise the sector to do this, and we have got some people’s hopes up. We have even got people on to doctor apprenticeships and then kiboshed them. It would be tragic if the Government do what they have said they will do. We would be shooting ourselves in the foot, and this amendment just gives us good evidence of the consequences of doing so.

[Damian Hinds]

Before I talk about clause 9 and amendment 7, if it is not out of order, may I ask a question relating to the previous clause? I do not want to relitigate the arguments, but I just want to ask the Minister to write to me or to the Committee—I do not know what the correct process is—because I am afraid that I still do not understand what the Government’s intent is with clause 8. I hope that that is possible.

Turning to—

[The Chair]

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves on, we are just debating amendment 7; we will debate clause 9 stand part separately.

[Damian Hinds]

Forgive me on that front as well, Sir Christopher. In that case, I have only two questions specifically on the amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston rightly asked about the public sector workforce. Specifically for the DFE, what impact do the Government expect on the postgraduate teaching apprenticeships and on persuading graduate teaching assistants to become teachers?

[Janet Daby]

Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State’s report about the exercise of functions transferred from IfATE to include information on the impact on the provision of level 7 apprenticeships in England. The amendment would duplicate the duty in the Bill for the Secretary of State to report on the impact of the exercise of relevant functions on apprenticeships. What the amendment appears to be asking for is already in scope of the report, as described in clause 9. I also reassure Members that Skills England’s analysis and insights, which highlight skills needs in our economy, will reflect how far apprenticeships and other technical qualifications are meeting those needs on an ongoing basis.

I should be clear that Skills England will be an evidence-based, authoritative voice on skills, with a broad and ambitious remit to identify and tackle skills gaps. Although it will have a significant impact across the Government, and indeed the country, it is part of a skills system where priority skills policy, strategy and funding decisions remain for the Secretary of State and the Cabinet. Taking advice from Skills England, we will be asking more employers to step forward and fund level 7 apprenticeships. As I have said, we will set out more information shortly. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I apologise for my misreading of the groupings earlier, Sir Christopher. Clause 9 is the new clause inserted by the Government in response to the other place. It requires there to be a report on the exercise of the Secretary of State’s functions and for the report to be made within six months and laid before Parliament. It will cover which functions are going to be done through Skills England and the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions on apprenticeships and technical education in England.

New clause 2 proposes that all the functions of IfATE go to Skills England. The obvious question is: why not? Why would they not go to Skills England? When we come to the debate on new clause 2, there will be an opportunity for the Government to explain that to us.

We have heard a bunch of times about how there has been all this preparatory work—that it has been a long time in the making, that Skills England exists in shadow form and that the Government thought about it a great deal. Why can they not tell us now which functions are going to go to Skills England?

On the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions, is it really right for the body itself to talk about what its impact has been? Should there not be some external validation to consider the effectiveness of the body? I have three questions for the Minister. We know that the report will be laid before Parliament, but what will its status be? Will Parliament be able to debate it? Will it be binding in some way? What if this Secretary of State or a future Secretary of State takes a different view, bearing in mind that under this legislation they would be allowed to? If they take a different view, will a new report be required and will Parliament have any say in that?

[Janet Daby]

Clause 9 is about improving the reporting and transparency of Skills England. It shows this Government’s willingness to listen and work constructively with Members here and in the other place. I believe I have already outlined what Skills England will do, but for the sake of clarity, the Bill means that for the first time mean there is a single organisation responsible for identifying skills needs in our economy. It will design training that reflects employers’ skills needs, and it will work in all parts of the country so that the training available reflects national and regional priorities.

We have a skills shortage in our country and a workforce shortage. We need more people trained up to take on the jobs that are needed in our society. We want to get things moving. That is why we are bringing this Bill forward. In relation to accountability, the Secretary of State will be accountable as usual before Parliament and relevant Select Committees, as Skills England will be. On that note, I commend clause 9 to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10

Power to make consequential provision

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

New clause 25 would introduce a requirement for the Government to publish a report within two years of passing of the Bill on the impact of removing VAT exemption on private school fees. The report would need to provide details of any private school closures, the number of pupils from private schools who have moved schools, the availability of state school places at local and national level, what percentage of children are offered a place at their parents’ first-choice school, and whether any admissions authorities have increased their published admissions numbers as a result of VAT policy.

Before proceeding any further, I would like to note that the issue of VAT on private school fees has been subject to extensive debate during the course of the Finance Bill and the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. As the Government have noted on many occasions now, a thorough impact assessment of the removal of VAT exemption has been conducted. A comprehensive tax impact and information note was published alongside the autumn Budget and provides much of the information sought by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. This policy, as Members will be aware, took effect from 1 January 2025.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister not accept that there is a fundamental difference between a projection of what is expected to happen and the reporting on what has actually happened? It is the latter that helps with future policy development by learning from experience.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the right hon. Member for his interventions, and I ask him to be a bit more patient in the light of what I am going on to say. The Government’s impact assessment shows that we expect the number of private school closures to remain relatively low and that will be influenced by various factors, not just this VAT policy. Around 50 private schools, excluding independent special schools, close each year, and the Government estimate that 100 schools in total may close over the next three years in addition to the normal levels of turnover, after which closures will return to historical norms.

The Government also estimate that, in the long-term steady state, 35,000 pupils are expected to move from private schools to UK state schools. That represents less than 0.5% of all state school pupils and the resultant impact on the state education system, as a whole, is therefore expected to be very small. Differences in local circumstances will mean that the impact of this policy will vary between parts of the UK. The number of private school pupils who might seek state-funded places will vary by geographical location, and that will interact with other local place pressures.

In addition to the impact assessment, regular data is published by the Department for Education on pupil numbers and pupil moves. Data on the numbers of pupils in private schools is collected and published through the annual school census, and data on how many parents receive offers from their preferred schools in the normal admissions round is also collected from local authorities and published annually. We cannot definitively correlate pupil moves with the ending of the VAT exemption, as pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons.

Moreover, admissions decisions must strictly be made in accordance with a school’s published admissions criteria only. We should therefore be cautious of measures that would require parents to state the reason why they are choosing to move their children to a different school, to avoid any impression that this information may be misused. School’s published admission numbers may be raised to respond to a wider local demand; in some cases and in some areas that may include, but will not necessarily limited to, increased numbers of pupils from the private sector. Where schools wish to raise their published admission number, they should do so in co-operation and collaboration with the local authority, and with a view to what is needed in the local area. Indeed, there are other measures in the Bill that stress the importance of co-operation on this issue.

Local authorities will consider pressures following the removal of the VAT exemption on school fees alongside other pressures as part of the normal place-planning cycle—this is business as usual. The Department for Education will be monitoring place demand and capacity using our normal processes and will be working with local authorities to meet any pressures. While I am grateful to Members for their interest in the issue of removing the VAT exemption on private schools, I hope that they are reassured that the Government have already addressed the impact of this policy and continue to monitor it.

[Damian Hinds]

I have been trying to exercise my best patience as the Minister entreated me to do. I think he is saying that it will never be possible to know, in reality, what the effect of this tax change is. Is that right?

[Stephen Morgan]

I know the right hon. Member will have been listening very carefully to what I said, and I made it very clear that there is a census published each year, which sets out those figures. We will work very closely with local authorities to understand the impact that the policy has.

The hon. Member for Twickenham made a number of points on children with SEND. The vast majority of pupils who have special educational needs are educated in mainstream schools—whether they are state-maintained or private—where their needs are met. Where parents have chosen to send their child to a private school but their special educational needs could be met in the state sector—such as in England where children do not have an EHCP—VAT will apply to fees. The Government do not support the new clause for the reasons that I have outlined, and I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

There have now been four waves of updates from the children and young people’s mental ill health prevalence survey conducted by the NHS. That invaluable resource has provided annual data and enabled us to look at ourselves against other countries, although the data are not perfectly comparable. I gather that there is no current commitment to wave five. I know the Department of Health and Social Care said that it would keep an open mind, but will the Minister join me in strongly encouraging his colleagues at the Department to maintain that data series, because it is incredibly important?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will certainly take away that point. I know that the right hon. Member cares passionately about the wellbeing of children and young people, and I am happy to explore that further.

We know that many good schools and local areas already measure pupil wellbeing to inform local action. The Department encourages that, with identifying need and monitoring impact being one principle of an effective whole-school approach to mental health and wellbeing. Although we do not currently have plans to introduce a standardised national wellbeing measurement programme, we continue to engage with schools to increase the understanding of wellbeing measurement approaches and impact.

It is not clear that the benefits of a national programme would outweigh the burdens on schools, or the reduction in their ability to select tools to suit their cohorts. We would also need to consider the potential effect of a national measure on school accountability. Should the case for a national measure be made, there is likely to be scope to introduce the kind of voluntary participation programme envisaged in the new clause without recourse to primary legislation. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Twickenham to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I understood the point that the hon. Member made in his speech, and I understand his clarification. I still struggle to see how the new clause fits in with what I regard as the Conservative party’s ideology around schooling and children’s wellbeing. It feels anomalous to ask headteachers and teachers to work within a ban, rather than trusting them to use the flexibility that the previous Government gave them.

One highlight of the Committee’s debate over the last few weeks has been the recognition that our teachers and headteachers know their students best. It is important that we give them all the trust and support that they deserve. I sympathise with what the hon. Member says about addictive apps, but for me it is not about banning, per se; it is about creating a viable and better alternative that gives children and teenagers much better things to do with their time.

[Damian Hinds]

I rise to speak in favour of the new clause. Unusually, I will start by saying what the new clause will not do, and the limits of the change it proposes.

The truth is that the vast majority of online harm does not happen at school. Banning phones or social media in school will not necessarily reduce the total amount of time that children spend online or address schools’ worries about kids being online, such as the concern about the increasing number of children who turn up to school having not slept sufficiently to be ready for the day. Nor does the new clause address the wider problems—not day to day, but more chronic—with attention span and eyesight. We have recently heard a lot about the greater prevalence of myopia.

Rules in this area are still important, however, and behaviour in school is crucial for teacher recruitment and, particularly, retention. Three big things have changed in schools in the last few years. The first is an attitudinal shift that came about around the time of covid, and that it will take us some years to understand. The other two are vapes and phones. It cannot be overstated how much those three things affect what happens in a school, the feel of the school and what teachers and headteachers report back.

The first thing that schoolchildren need for learning is to be able to concentrate. There is good reason to believe that even when a child is not using a phone, the fact that it is in their pocket—that it could buzz, vibrate or whatever at any point—can distract them. I think it is an important principle that the entire school day, including break time and lunch time, should be reserved for what school is about: learning, developing and being with friends. The question, as always, is whether we leave that to individual schools or have a national rule, and the hon. Member for Bournemouth East was right to speak about the tension between the two. I confess that that is a question I have personally had to grapple with on more than one occasion, and there is not a single, simple answer.

In the Bill, there are many national rules for things that arguably do not need a national rule, and that could be left to individual schools so that they can do what is best for their school community—from the precise number of school uniform items to the exact length of breakfast. The hon. Member is right that the Labour instinct is to say, “Let’s have a national rule on everything; we like consistency.” There is nothing wrong with consistency. He is also right that our instinct is to say, “Leave those rules to the schools wherever possible.” There are, however, times when an overriding national rule is beneficial and makes sense.

In 2019, when I was at the Department for Education, this question came up for me. At the time, we decided not to put a national rule in place. Politicians are always expected to have a firm and clear view on everything, and Ministers are expected to be absolutely certain about every decision they make, but it does not always work like that. Things can often be argued both ways. I was never 100% sure at the time that I was doing the right thing, but I thought I was. In 2024, we introduced non-statutory guidance on how the use of mobile phones should be prohibited throughout the school day, which, crucially, included breaks. We were also clear that there was the option to make the guidance statutory if necessary.

The world has continued to change since then. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister described, when it comes to mobile phone use and our worries about children, that change has not made things slightly less bad than they were before. Worries have only deepened and intensified.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

If the hon. Member has counter-examples, let us hear them.

[Tom Hayes]

That is not the point on which I am intervening. I was going to say that by using the language of mobile phone and smartphone interchangeably, we are confusing the debate. If our debate is confused, I am not sure how we can arrive at a certain policy.

I called for agreement with the Government around national rules. I want to clarify that I did not mean on everything, but only on the things in the Bill that I think need national rules. I agree with the right hon. Member that that is what provides consistency.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Member is right about the difficulty with defining the term smartphone. People talk about a brick phone, a feature phone, a basic phone, a Nokia, a smartphone and an iPhone, but the truth is that there is no definition; smartphone is just a term. It originally came about when people did not want to use the brand name iPhone, because Samsung phones and other types of phone were available. It just means a smarter phone; it has more stuff on it. Some of the things that people worry about are not necessarily only available on smartphones. I looked recently at iMessage, and it is starting to look more like WhatsApp. Anything that can be used for a group chat has some of the issues that we find in schools that cover the teenage and sub-teenage years.

There are other things that people can get on a smartphone but not on a Nokia that are perfectly benign. Some parents are quite keen for their kids to be able to look at the weather. Some are keen to be able to use the tracking device to follow their child, or for their child to be able to use the mapping device to find their way home, so I agree with the hon. Member.

[Neil O'Brien]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Damian Hinds]

This is in danger of turning into a much longer speech than I anticipated.

[Neil O'Brien]

It is good to have this point of clarification. The clause uses the rather quaint phrase “mobile telephones” to capture everything, because the distinction between these devices is blurred. Among those who are interested in the smartphone issue, there is a separate debate about the use of dumbphones for things like walking to and from school, but there is no reason why even a dumbphone cannot cause massive distraction if it is out in class. A child could be texting somebody, for example, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the distinction between these things is blurred these days. That is why we have this catch-all term. It is clear, and it is possible to legislate on that basis, notwithstanding our other discussions outside the scope of this debate.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for refocusing what I was saying, and he is absolutely right. Some of our worries in relation to children apply regardless of the piece of technology. Anything that demands our attention and is ever-present brings such risks.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I promise that this will be my last intervention.

[Damian Hinds]

On that promise, I will give way.

[Tom Hayes]

I want to labour this point, as it were, because I understand entirely the point that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston made. It is important to do so, because there are parents and children who wish to retain the option of being in contact with each other for safeguarding or wellbeing reasons. Such parents typically draw the distinction between a mobile phone, which allows for SMS and voice calls; and a smartphone, which typically has addictive social media or games, or particular apps that might cause wider safeguarding concerns. That is why I am trying to draw the right hon. Gentleman into focusing on mobile phones—brick phones, Nokia phones or the ones that Snake can be played on—as opposed to more sophisticated phones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I had my most recent constituency session with parents on the matter last Friday, and with some things, there is a bit of a grey area. Lots of parents say, “I don’t really mind so much about this”, but others do mind. With tracking technology, for example, some parents say that they really do not like being able to know where their child is. There is some variance, but the one imperative that is common to almost every parent is, “I want my child to be able to call me if they are in trouble, and I want to be able to call them on the way to and from school.” Parents want to hear from children if a club has been cancelled and they will be coming home at a different time, or if they are worried, or whatever it is. It is possible to do that on essentially any phone on the market, from the highest iPhone—I do not know what number they are up to these days—down to the most basic sub-Nokia brick phone.

There are other questions about functionality, and about what social media is. The Australians are having a bit of a debate about that at the moment, because to ban social media, they have to know what they are trying to ban. However, to address directly the point that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East made, much of this discussion relates to all manner of electronica that a child might have in their pocket or bag.

[Ellie Chowns]

Are we not getting a bit distracted? The new clause is about banning things from the start of the first lesson to the end of the last, not on the way to or from school when children might want to call their parents.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady is quite right. I was only going to speak about this for three minutes or so, but the hon. Gentleman tempted me into other areas. On the promise that he was making one last intervention, I indulged him, and I am grateful to him.

In an earlier intervention on the Minister for School Standards, I mentioned the NHS mental health of children and young people survey, which shows us what has happened over time to children’s mental health. There is an inflection point and it comes, contrary to what most people believe, before the covid pandemic. That is the first critical data point to understand.

The second critical data point is that when we look beyond that study at other countries’ studies, we see that none of them are perfectly comparable, but studies in countries such as Germany, France and the United States follow basically the same pattern. There is an increase in the prevalence of mental ill health conditions in all the published data that I have seen for other countries. Whatever people say about domestic politics, whichever party was in Government here and whatever they did, that cannot explain what happens in France or the United States. The fact is that there is a global trend, or at least a trend in the western world, of an increasing prevalence of mental ill health conditions among children.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

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

[Damian Hinds]

Can the hon. Member please explain what she means?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Damian Hinds]

We can have the classic, “Oh, the wording is technically flawed” argument—which to be fair to the Government, they have not deployed in this Bill Committee yet. We hope the amendment will be subsumed into the Bill, but the Government would never say, “Oh, we’ll just take that amendment and put it in.” Whoever is in Government never says that; they say, “Right, we accept this point. Now we’ll work on the detailed wording”.

[Neil O’Brien]

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

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

I think this is—

[Catherine Atkinson]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

You cannot intervene on an intervention.

[The Chair]

Order. There is only one speaker at a time and there can be one intervention—I also say to the right hon. Member that there is only one Chair, so let us get it right.

[Damian Hinds]

I am very grateful—

[Catherine Atkinson]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

Go on.

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

[Damian Hinds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

We have spent a great deal of time in Committee hearing from Opposition Members about autonomy: headteachers’ autonomy, school autonomy, and school leaders knowing exactly what is best for their pupils and communities. Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states that the policy

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

but that means that the school leader could choose not to ban mobile phones for anybody in their school; there are exemptions, and they could decide that that is what they need. But that was not what I was going to talk about.

The use of mobile phones in schools should be decided at school level. It should reflect school values, processes and procedures, and not be decided in a directive or legislation from Government. Deciding it at school level would allow for the reasonable use of phones and technology, and it would allow for a balanced approach to technology. It could involve the school community in a discussion about what the phones and technology are being used for—a simple ban would not do that—and could include conversations about digital wellness and promoting healthier relationships, both offline and online, and a healthy approach to using technology at school, in the workplace and in the wider world. If we banned kids from using phones in school, we probably should ban people in their offices and in meetings from using them, because they do not pay attention either. Given how often we look up and see people not even bothering, how on earth can children learn while using mobile phones and technology in a measured and supportive way?

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the Birmingham study from February, which was mentioned previously. It found that banning smartphones in schools did not directly improve student academic performance or mental health. However, that research indicated that excessive phone use correlates with negative outcomes, yet there were no significant differences between the kids who had bans in their school and those who did not. It is about the wider picture, which has been talked about. I also draw the Committee’s attention to a survey conducted in November 2024 of over 1,000 teachers. One in five believed that a school-wide ban would not improve the relationships and attainment levels of children, and 41% agreed that they used smartphones as a teaching tool within their classrooms.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

New clause 8 is another important probing amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud, that places a duty on the Secretary of State to proactively identify all children eligible for free school meals in England, making the application process for free school meals opt out, rather than opt in. I note that the Minister, in his comments on new clause 5, mentioned that making things statutory made it terribly restrictive. On that basis, why would one ever make anything statutory?

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

School uniform guidance?

[Ellie Chowns]

This new clause seeks to address the very real problem that up to 250,000 children, or approximately 11% of those eligible for free school meals, even under the currently very restrictive eligibility criteria, miss out on them because it is an opt-in process. It is simply not okay that so many eligible children are missing out on free school meals. That is in addition to the roughly 900,000 children who are living in poverty, but still not qualifying for free school meals because the eligibility criteria are so tight. I believe that we may be coming on to discuss that a little later.

Early findings from areas with which the Fix Our Food research programme are working show that children from non-white communities, or lone-parent households, are more likely to not be registered for free school meals despite being eligible. Again, inequalities are reproducing themselves when it comes to people accessing their statutory rights. Charities working to address this totally unacceptable situation point to several reasons for the under-registration rate: parents may struggle to fill out complex forms; there may be language barriers for parents; there may be a lack of awareness of free school eligibility; and there may be stigma or embarrassment. The current system is regularly described by schools and local authorities as “cumbersome” and “financially and administratively inefficient”. Receiving statutory benefits should be easy and straightforward for people who are eligible.

There are obvious benefits to the child from getting a nutritious, filling lunch, which we have discussed already today and also on our last sitting day, including reduced food insecurity, improved nutrition and health, and increased attainment and lifetime earning potential, as I set out when I spoke to new clause 2. There are also important wider benefits to the child. Struggling families also miss out on other benefits that free school meal registration would give them access to, including the holiday activities and food programme and uniform grants.

There are also benefits to schools. If children are not registered for free school meals, schools miss out on much-needed pupil premium funding, worth £1,455 per pupil. There are also benefits to local authorities. The Fix Our Food research programme is supporting 66 local authorities to implement an opt-out, or right-to-object approach to free school meal registration. It is identifying and writing to families using existing datasets to inform them that their children will be automatically registered unless they opt out.

As I understand it, in many cases, this has resulted in children, who were previously missing out, becoming successfully registered, and opt-out rates are extremely low. However, only a few councils have successfully adopted this new process. In some cases, despite local authorities’ efforts, data sharing barriers have not been possible to overcome. Some have even been threatened with legal action. The local work still does not capture all eligible children, with families falling through the gaps, as access to datasets is patchy. Further, my understanding is that this process is resource-intensive. Again, it is administratively intensive, incurring onerous governance and administration at council and school level.

Meanwhile, the Greater London Authority has put resource into auto-enrolment. Although that is positive for children in London, the same level of support is not available for most children in the rest of England.

Free school meal auto-enrolment would register eligible families to receive free school meals using benefits data, unless families decide to opt out. This requires data sharing between the Department for Work and Pensions, which holds the data that identifies which children should be eligible for these schemes, and the Department for Education, which administers the scheme. I really hope that, as part of this important Bill,the Government will seriously consider how they can introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals to ensure that all those who are eligible are in receipt of their entitlement. This is a fantastic opportunity to do so now.

As a statutory scheme, funding for the meals for these children should already be available. There is just an administrative barrier that stops far too many children getting what they are entitled to. In the meantime, until this is established, I hope the Government will instigate collaborative working across local government so that we can agree to make progress on this issue.

In conclusion, I want to underscore the fact that we should see this as a first step towards expanding eligibility for free school meals to more children to ensure that no child misses out on a nutritious hot meal at school every day.

--- Later in debate ---

The Opposition have been grabbing at headlines to call for an inquiry to address the same questions already asked—

[Damian Hinds]

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

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

[Damian Hinds]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Stephen Morgan]

New clause 25 would introduce a requirement for the Government to publish a report within two years of passing of the Bill on the impact of removing VAT exemption on private school fees. The report would need to provide details of any private school closures, the number of pupils from private schools who have moved schools, the availability of state school places at local and national level, what percentage of children are offered a place at their parents’ first-choice school, and whether any admissions authorities have increased their published admissions numbers as a result of VAT policy.

Before proceeding any further, I would like to note that the issue of VAT on private school fees has been subject to extensive debate during the course of the Finance Bill and the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. As the Government have noted on many occasions now, a thorough impact assessment of the removal of VAT exemption has been conducted. A comprehensive tax impact and information note was published alongside the autumn Budget and provides much of the information sought by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. This policy, as Members will be aware, took effect from 1 January 2025.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister not accept that there is a fundamental difference between a projection of what is expected to happen and the reporting on what has actually happened? It is the latter that helps with future policy development by learning from experience.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the right hon. Member for his interventions, and I ask him to be a bit more patient in the light of what I am going on to say. The Government’s impact assessment shows that we expect the number of private school closures to remain relatively low and that will be influenced by various factors, not just this VAT policy. Around 50 private schools, excluding independent special schools, close each year, and the Government estimate that 100 schools in total may close over the next three years in addition to the normal levels of turnover, after which closures will return to historical norms.

The Government also estimate that, in the long-term steady state, 35,000 pupils are expected to move from private schools to UK state schools. That represents less than 0.5% of all state school pupils and the resultant impact on the state education system, as a whole, is therefore expected to be very small. Differences in local circumstances will mean that the impact of this policy will vary between parts of the UK. The number of private school pupils who might seek state-funded places will vary by geographical location, and that will interact with other local place pressures.

In addition to the impact assessment, regular data is published by the Department for Education on pupil numbers and pupil moves. Data on the numbers of pupils in private schools is collected and published through the annual school census, and data on how many parents receive offers from their preferred schools in the normal admissions round is also collected from local authorities and published annually. We cannot definitively correlate pupil moves with the ending of the VAT exemption, as pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons.

Moreover, admissions decisions must strictly be made in accordance with a school’s published admissions criteria only. We should therefore be cautious of measures that would require parents to state the reason why they are choosing to move their children to a different school, to avoid any impression that this information may be misused. School’s published admission numbers may be raised to respond to a wider local demand; in some cases and in some areas that may include, but will not necessarily limited to, increased numbers of pupils from the private sector. Where schools wish to raise their published admission number, they should do so in co-operation and collaboration with the local authority, and with a view to what is needed in the local area. Indeed, there are other measures in the Bill that stress the importance of co-operation on this issue.

Local authorities will consider pressures following the removal of the VAT exemption on school fees alongside other pressures as part of the normal place-planning cycle—this is business as usual. The Department for Education will be monitoring place demand and capacity using our normal processes and will be working with local authorities to meet any pressures. While I am grateful to Members for their interest in the issue of removing the VAT exemption on private schools, I hope that they are reassured that the Government have already addressed the impact of this policy and continue to monitor it.

[Damian Hinds]

I have been trying to exercise my best patience as the Minister entreated me to do. I think he is saying that it will never be possible to know, in reality, what the effect of this tax change is. Is that right?

[Stephen Morgan]

I know the right hon. Member will have been listening very carefully to what I said, and I made it very clear that there is a census published each year, which sets out those figures. We will work very closely with local authorities to understand the impact that the policy has.

The hon. Member for Twickenham made a number of points on children with SEND. The vast majority of pupils who have special educational needs are educated in mainstream schools—whether they are state-maintained or private—where their needs are met. Where parents have chosen to send their child to a private school but their special educational needs could be met in the state sector—such as in England where children do not have an EHCP—VAT will apply to fees. The Government do not support the new clause for the reasons that I have outlined, and I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

There have now been four waves of updates from the children and young people’s mental ill health prevalence survey conducted by the NHS. That invaluable resource has provided annual data and enabled us to look at ourselves against other countries, although the data are not perfectly comparable. I gather that there is no current commitment to wave five. I know the Department of Health and Social Care said that it would keep an open mind, but will the Minister join me in strongly encouraging his colleagues at the Department to maintain that data series, because it is incredibly important?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will certainly take away that point. I know that the right hon. Member cares passionately about the wellbeing of children and young people, and I am happy to explore that further.

We know that many good schools and local areas already measure pupil wellbeing to inform local action. The Department encourages that, with identifying need and monitoring impact being one principle of an effective whole-school approach to mental health and wellbeing. Although we do not currently have plans to introduce a standardised national wellbeing measurement programme, we continue to engage with schools to increase the understanding of wellbeing measurement approaches and impact.

It is not clear that the benefits of a national programme would outweigh the burdens on schools, or the reduction in their ability to select tools to suit their cohorts. We would also need to consider the potential effect of a national measure on school accountability. Should the case for a national measure be made, there is likely to be scope to introduce the kind of voluntary participation programme envisaged in the new clause without recourse to primary legislation. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Twickenham to withdraw the new clause.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tom Hayes]

I understood the point that the hon. Member made in his speech, and I understand his clarification. I still struggle to see how the new clause fits in with what I regard as the Conservative party’s ideology around schooling and children’s wellbeing. It feels anomalous to ask headteachers and teachers to work within a ban, rather than trusting them to use the flexibility that the previous Government gave them.

One highlight of the Committee’s debate over the last few weeks has been the recognition that our teachers and headteachers know their students best. It is important that we give them all the trust and support that they deserve. I sympathise with what the hon. Member says about addictive apps, but for me it is not about banning, per se; it is about creating a viable and better alternative that gives children and teenagers much better things to do with their time.

[Damian Hinds]

I rise to speak in favour of the new clause. Unusually, I will start by saying what the new clause will not do, and the limits of the change it proposes.

The truth is that the vast majority of online harm does not happen at school. Banning phones or social media in school will not necessarily reduce the total amount of time that children spend online or address schools’ worries about kids being online, such as the concern about the increasing number of children who turn up to school having not slept sufficiently to be ready for the day. Nor does the new clause address the wider problems—not day to day, but more chronic—with attention span and eyesight. We have recently heard a lot about the greater prevalence of myopia.

Rules in this area are still important, however, and behaviour in school is crucial for teacher recruitment and, particularly, retention. Three big things have changed in schools in the last few years. The first is an attitudinal shift that came about around the time of covid, and that it will take us some years to understand. The other two are vapes and phones. It cannot be overstated how much those three things affect what happens in a school, the feel of the school and what teachers and headteachers report back.

The first thing that schoolchildren need for learning is to be able to concentrate. There is good reason to believe that even when a child is not using a phone, the fact that it is in their pocket—that it could buzz, vibrate or whatever at any point—can distract them. I think it is an important principle that the entire school day, including break time and lunch time, should be reserved for what school is about: learning, developing and being with friends. The question, as always, is whether we leave that to individual schools or have a national rule, and the hon. Member for Bournemouth East was right to speak about the tension between the two. I confess that that is a question I have personally had to grapple with on more than one occasion, and there is not a single, simple answer.

In the Bill, there are many national rules for things that arguably do not need a national rule, and that could be left to individual schools so that they can do what is best for their school community—from the precise number of school uniform items to the exact length of breakfast. The hon. Member is right that the Labour instinct is to say, “Let’s have a national rule on everything; we like consistency.” There is nothing wrong with consistency. He is also right that our instinct is to say, “Leave those rules to the schools wherever possible.” There are, however, times when an overriding national rule is beneficial and makes sense.

In 2019, when I was at the Department for Education, this question came up for me. At the time, we decided not to put a national rule in place. Politicians are always expected to have a firm and clear view on everything, and Ministers are expected to be absolutely certain about every decision they make, but it does not always work like that. Things can often be argued both ways. I was never 100% sure at the time that I was doing the right thing, but I thought I was. In 2024, we introduced non-statutory guidance on how the use of mobile phones should be prohibited throughout the school day, which, crucially, included breaks. We were also clear that there was the option to make the guidance statutory if necessary.

The world has continued to change since then. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister described, when it comes to mobile phone use and our worries about children, that change has not made things slightly less bad than they were before. Worries have only deepened and intensified.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

If the hon. Member has counter-examples, let us hear them.

[Tom Hayes]

That is not the point on which I am intervening. I was going to say that by using the language of mobile phone and smartphone interchangeably, we are confusing the debate. If our debate is confused, I am not sure how we can arrive at a certain policy.

I called for agreement with the Government around national rules. I want to clarify that I did not mean on everything, but only on the things in the Bill that I think need national rules. I agree with the right hon. Member that that is what provides consistency.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Member is right about the difficulty with defining the term smartphone. People talk about a brick phone, a feature phone, a basic phone, a Nokia, a smartphone and an iPhone, but the truth is that there is no definition; smartphone is just a term. It originally came about when people did not want to use the brand name iPhone, because Samsung phones and other types of phone were available. It just means a smarter phone; it has more stuff on it. Some of the things that people worry about are not necessarily only available on smartphones. I looked recently at iMessage, and it is starting to look more like WhatsApp. Anything that can be used for a group chat has some of the issues that we find in schools that cover the teenage and sub-teenage years.

There are other things that people can get on a smartphone but not on a Nokia that are perfectly benign. Some parents are quite keen for their kids to be able to look at the weather. Some are keen to be able to use the tracking device to follow their child, or for their child to be able to use the mapping device to find their way home, so I agree with the hon. Member.

[Neil O'Brien]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Damian Hinds]

This is in danger of turning into a much longer speech than I anticipated.

[Neil O'Brien]

It is good to have this point of clarification. The clause uses the rather quaint phrase “mobile telephones” to capture everything, because the distinction between these devices is blurred. Among those who are interested in the smartphone issue, there is a separate debate about the use of dumbphones for things like walking to and from school, but there is no reason why even a dumbphone cannot cause massive distraction if it is out in class. A child could be texting somebody, for example, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the distinction between these things is blurred these days. That is why we have this catch-all term. It is clear, and it is possible to legislate on that basis, notwithstanding our other discussions outside the scope of this debate.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for refocusing what I was saying, and he is absolutely right. Some of our worries in relation to children apply regardless of the piece of technology. Anything that demands our attention and is ever-present brings such risks.

[Tom Hayes]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I promise that this will be my last intervention.

[Damian Hinds]

On that promise, I will give way.

[Tom Hayes]

I want to labour this point, as it were, because I understand entirely the point that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston made. It is important to do so, because there are parents and children who wish to retain the option of being in contact with each other for safeguarding or wellbeing reasons. Such parents typically draw the distinction between a mobile phone, which allows for SMS and voice calls; and a smartphone, which typically has addictive social media or games, or particular apps that might cause wider safeguarding concerns. That is why I am trying to draw the right hon. Gentleman into focusing on mobile phones—brick phones, Nokia phones or the ones that Snake can be played on—as opposed to more sophisticated phones.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I had my most recent constituency session with parents on the matter last Friday, and with some things, there is a bit of a grey area. Lots of parents say, “I don’t really mind so much about this”, but others do mind. With tracking technology, for example, some parents say that they really do not like being able to know where their child is. There is some variance, but the one imperative that is common to almost every parent is, “I want my child to be able to call me if they are in trouble, and I want to be able to call them on the way to and from school.” Parents want to hear from children if a club has been cancelled and they will be coming home at a different time, or if they are worried, or whatever it is. It is possible to do that on essentially any phone on the market, from the highest iPhone—I do not know what number they are up to these days—down to the most basic sub-Nokia brick phone.

There are other questions about functionality, and about what social media is. The Australians are having a bit of a debate about that at the moment, because to ban social media, they have to know what they are trying to ban. However, to address directly the point that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East made, much of this discussion relates to all manner of electronica that a child might have in their pocket or bag.

[Ellie Chowns]

Are we not getting a bit distracted? The new clause is about banning things from the start of the first lesson to the end of the last, not on the way to or from school when children might want to call their parents.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Lady is quite right. I was only going to speak about this for three minutes or so, but the hon. Gentleman tempted me into other areas. On the promise that he was making one last intervention, I indulged him, and I am grateful to him.

In an earlier intervention on the Minister for School Standards, I mentioned the NHS mental health of children and young people survey, which shows us what has happened over time to children’s mental health. There is an inflection point and it comes, contrary to what most people believe, before the covid pandemic. That is the first critical data point to understand.

The second critical data point is that when we look beyond that study at other countries’ studies, we see that none of them are perfectly comparable, but studies in countries such as Germany, France and the United States follow basically the same pattern. There is an increase in the prevalence of mental ill health conditions in all the published data that I have seen for other countries. Whatever people say about domestic politics, whichever party was in Government here and whatever they did, that cannot explain what happens in France or the United States. The fact is that there is a global trend, or at least a trend in the western world, of an increasing prevalence of mental ill health conditions among children.

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

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

[Damian Hinds]

Can the hon. Member please explain what she means?

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Damian Hinds]

We can have the classic, “Oh, the wording is technically flawed” argument—which to be fair to the Government, they have not deployed in this Bill Committee yet. We hope the amendment will be subsumed into the Bill, but the Government would never say, “Oh, we’ll just take that amendment and put it in.” Whoever is in Government never says that; they say, “Right, we accept this point. Now we’ll work on the detailed wording”.

[Neil O’Brien]

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

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

I think this is—

[Catherine Atkinson]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

You cannot intervene on an intervention.

[The Chair]

Order. There is only one speaker at a time and there can be one intervention—I also say to the right hon. Member that there is only one Chair, so let us get it right.

[Damian Hinds]

I am very grateful—

[Catherine Atkinson]

rose—

[Damian Hinds]

Go on.

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

[Damian Hinds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

We have spent a great deal of time in Committee hearing from Opposition Members about autonomy: headteachers’ autonomy, school autonomy, and school leaders knowing exactly what is best for their pupils and communities. Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states that the policy

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

but that means that the school leader could choose not to ban mobile phones for anybody in their school; there are exemptions, and they could decide that that is what they need. But that was not what I was going to talk about.

The use of mobile phones in schools should be decided at school level. It should reflect school values, processes and procedures, and not be decided in a directive or legislation from Government. Deciding it at school level would allow for the reasonable use of phones and technology, and it would allow for a balanced approach to technology. It could involve the school community in a discussion about what the phones and technology are being used for—a simple ban would not do that—and could include conversations about digital wellness and promoting healthier relationships, both offline and online, and a healthy approach to using technology at school, in the workplace and in the wider world. If we banned kids from using phones in school, we probably should ban people in their offices and in meetings from using them, because they do not pay attention either. Given how often we look up and see people not even bothering, how on earth can children learn while using mobile phones and technology in a measured and supportive way?

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the Birmingham study from February, which was mentioned previously. It found that banning smartphones in schools did not directly improve student academic performance or mental health. However, that research indicated that excessive phone use correlates with negative outcomes, yet there were no significant differences between the kids who had bans in their school and those who did not. It is about the wider picture, which has been talked about. I also draw the Committee’s attention to a survey conducted in November 2024 of over 1,000 teachers. One in five believed that a school-wide ban would not improve the relationships and attainment levels of children, and 41% agreed that they used smartphones as a teaching tool within their classrooms.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

New clause 8 is another important probing amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud, that places a duty on the Secretary of State to proactively identify all children eligible for free school meals in England, making the application process for free school meals opt out, rather than opt in. I note that the Minister, in his comments on new clause 5, mentioned that making things statutory made it terribly restrictive. On that basis, why would one ever make anything statutory?

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

School uniform guidance?

[Ellie Chowns]

This new clause seeks to address the very real problem that up to 250,000 children, or approximately 11% of those eligible for free school meals, even under the currently very restrictive eligibility criteria, miss out on them because it is an opt-in process. It is simply not okay that so many eligible children are missing out on free school meals. That is in addition to the roughly 900,000 children who are living in poverty, but still not qualifying for free school meals because the eligibility criteria are so tight. I believe that we may be coming on to discuss that a little later.

Early findings from areas with which the Fix Our Food research programme are working show that children from non-white communities, or lone-parent households, are more likely to not be registered for free school meals despite being eligible. Again, inequalities are reproducing themselves when it comes to people accessing their statutory rights. Charities working to address this totally unacceptable situation point to several reasons for the under-registration rate: parents may struggle to fill out complex forms; there may be language barriers for parents; there may be a lack of awareness of free school eligibility; and there may be stigma or embarrassment. The current system is regularly described by schools and local authorities as “cumbersome” and “financially and administratively inefficient”. Receiving statutory benefits should be easy and straightforward for people who are eligible.

There are obvious benefits to the child from getting a nutritious, filling lunch, which we have discussed already today and also on our last sitting day, including reduced food insecurity, improved nutrition and health, and increased attainment and lifetime earning potential, as I set out when I spoke to new clause 2. There are also important wider benefits to the child. Struggling families also miss out on other benefits that free school meal registration would give them access to, including the holiday activities and food programme and uniform grants.

There are also benefits to schools. If children are not registered for free school meals, schools miss out on much-needed pupil premium funding, worth £1,455 per pupil. There are also benefits to local authorities. The Fix Our Food research programme is supporting 66 local authorities to implement an opt-out, or right-to-object approach to free school meal registration. It is identifying and writing to families using existing datasets to inform them that their children will be automatically registered unless they opt out.

As I understand it, in many cases, this has resulted in children, who were previously missing out, becoming successfully registered, and opt-out rates are extremely low. However, only a few councils have successfully adopted this new process. In some cases, despite local authorities’ efforts, data sharing barriers have not been possible to overcome. Some have even been threatened with legal action. The local work still does not capture all eligible children, with families falling through the gaps, as access to datasets is patchy. Further, my understanding is that this process is resource-intensive. Again, it is administratively intensive, incurring onerous governance and administration at council and school level.

Meanwhile, the Greater London Authority has put resource into auto-enrolment. Although that is positive for children in London, the same level of support is not available for most children in the rest of England.

Free school meal auto-enrolment would register eligible families to receive free school meals using benefits data, unless families decide to opt out. This requires data sharing between the Department for Work and Pensions, which holds the data that identifies which children should be eligible for these schemes, and the Department for Education, which administers the scheme. I really hope that, as part of this important Bill,the Government will seriously consider how they can introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals to ensure that all those who are eligible are in receipt of their entitlement. This is a fantastic opportunity to do so now.

As a statutory scheme, funding for the meals for these children should already be available. There is just an administrative barrier that stops far too many children getting what they are entitled to. In the meantime, until this is established, I hope the Government will instigate collaborative working across local government so that we can agree to make progress on this issue.

In conclusion, I want to underscore the fact that we should see this as a first step towards expanding eligibility for free school meals to more children to ensure that no child misses out on a nutritious hot meal at school every day.

--- Later in debate ---

The Opposition have been grabbing at headlines to call for an inquiry to address the same questions already asked—

[Damian Hinds]

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

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

[Damian Hinds]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to clause 51, because there are some points I wish to raise about this part of the Bill allowing new schools to have 100% faith selection.

Clause 51 allows new schools to be opened without ideological restrictions on their type; they could be academies, community schools or voluntary aided schools, which in my view is extremely welcome; but it also creates the ability to open new 100% faith-selective schools, which worries me. The current 50% cap on faith selection for academies was introduced by the Labour Government in 2007, and further embedded into free schools in 2010 by the coalition Government. The Education Act 2011 mandated that all new schools must be free schools, extending the cap’s reach. That 50% limit was supported by all three main parties.

A scheme of local authority competitions similar to the one proposed in the clause operated from 2007 to 2012, in which we saw 100% faith-selective schools open. For example, Cambridgeshire county council ran a competition for a new school in which a 100% selective Church of England school won out over a proposal for a school with no religious character; the resultant school opened in 2017 and is still 100% faith selective. Another 100% religiously selective school was approved in the Peterborough council area. This has happened when the legislation has allowed for it.

We heard in the first evidence session that the Catholic Education Service would seek, in areas of oversubscription, to use 100% faith selection. We heard from the Church of England that nationally its policy is to stick to 50%, but its structure means that dioceses can put forward proposals for new schools, and they are not bound by that national policy. Members might be sitting here thinking, “So what? What is the problem with 100% faith-selective schools?” The problem is that 100% faith-selective schools are less socioeconomically diverse than might be expected for their catchment area, and less socioeconomically diverse than schools that are subject to the 50% cap. Compared with their 50% selective peers, 100% faith-selective schools are also less ethnically diverse than would be expected. Faith selective schools remain less inclusive across multiple factors. In my view, 100% faith selective admissions only exacerbate inequalities in the school system.

The Sutton Trust found that faith schools are less inclusive of disadvantaged children. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator found that faith-selective schools are less inclusive of children in care. The London School of Economics found that faith-selective schools are less inclusive of children with special educational needs and disabilities. Faith-selective admissions also disproportionately favour wealthier families, because they are socioeconomically more selective than other types of school. Compared with other schools, faith-selective schools admit fewer children eligible for free school meals than would be expected for their catchment area.

Many faith-selective schools operate a system of scoring for religious attendance and volunteering. In my view, this activity is simply easier for those with more economic or social capital—those who do not work weekends, nights or shifts, and who have a professional background where one is very happy and comfortable going into a new environment; perhaps one went to church as a child. At least since the 1950s, data shows that church attendance is higher among wealthier people. This religious activity is less easy to take part in for those who work shifts or weekends and those who do not have the cultural or social capital to enter confidently a situation that is new or perhaps culturally alien. I am focusing on church attendance because the religious majority in our country is Christian, even though actual religious belief is low.

Faith-selective schools encourage and embed educational inequalities, and that is why I am concerned about lifting the 50% faith-selection cap. I merely ask Ministers to consider this.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendment 48, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham. There are two main reasons people seek to limit school admissions on the basis of faith. The first is that some people do not like religion, organised religion, or the involvement of the state with organised religion. That is a matter of belief for some people. The second is that it is sometimes said that faith-based admission policies shut out others from good schools. There is sometimes a sense that it is academic or social selection by the back door. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale alluded to that. Some people—I am not saying this is the case with the hon. Lady—talk about the second issue when really they have in mind the first. One can be a proxy for the other.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

Before the hon. Lady corrects me, I did not say she was doing that.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I do not wish to correct the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he is correct that the two get confused. I have both of those beliefs.

[Damian Hinds]

I know! [Laughter.]

[Lizzi Collinge]

However I am very clear the evidence I am quoting is on the second of those. I would happily provide the right hon. Gentleman with the sources of evidence, should he like to peruse them.

[Damian Hinds]

I understand, acknowledge and respect what the hon. Lady says but, believe me, I do not need to see any more evidence on this subject, on which I have in my time perused large volumes. It is one of those issues—we talked the other day about another one—where the answer one wants can be found in the data.

Let us step back a moment. All liberal democracies permit freedom of religious belief, but the way it manifests is different in different countries. There can be an approach such as that in the United States or in France, where secularism in education is written into law or the constitution. We in this country have taken a different approach. We have always allowed denominational schools. In fact, we have not just “allowed” it; denominational schools and faith schools have always been a key part of the system. The biggest name in primary education in Britain is the Church of the England; the biggest name in secondary education in England is the Catholic Church.

It is not just in education that our country has this tradition. In international development, for example, the Government work closely with organisations such as Christian Aid, World Vision and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development. In children’s services, the Children’s Society used to be called the Church of England Children’s Society, and Action for Children, formerly National Children’s Home, has its roots in Methodism.

Before there were state schools, there were faith schools, often attached to monasteries or cathedrals. The Education Act 1944 formalised this position, sometimes known as the dual system, whereby faith schools could be a full part of the state school system while retaining their religious character. There is a distinction between what are known as voluntary aided schools and voluntary controlled schools, and different degrees therefore of independence for those two. VA tends to be mostly associated with the Catholic Church, but there are lots of Anglican VA schools, and VA schools of five or six other religious denominations as well.

It is understood traditionally and generally, but not entirely correctly that with a VA school, the Church provides the land and the state provides the building, and that there is a sort of co-ownership—it is obviously minority ownership on the part of the religious organisation. In reality, over time that system was eroded and changed to a cash contribution in which, typically, 10% would come from the Church, which then became 5%. I think there were some cases in which it was 0%, but broadly that tended to be the situation. Sometimes Churches complain about that, saying, “Why should we have to contribute to this school, when any other school being created is fully funded by the state?” I think that is a good rule for two reasons. First, it is a privilege to be able to have a school that is fully state funded for pupils within a faith, but it is also a guarantee of independence. It means that no future Government can come along and say, “We are going to change all these schools into fully secular schools,” because they are part-owned—albeit a small part—by that religious faith.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question of schools having a faith element, being run by a Church or by any faith group, is different from the question of whether, in their admissions policy, a school may discriminate against one child and in favour of another based on the professed faith of their parents? Does he agree that those are two separate issues?

[Damian Hinds]

They are different but related issues. For the avoidance of any confusion, when we talk about schools being “run” by a Church, there was a time when clerics ran schools, but things are not really done in that way today.

Some of the top-performing schools in the country are denominational schools with faith-based admissions. There are some very poor-performing faith schools and some brilliantly performing non-faith schools, and obviously it varies from year to year, but on average, faith schools tend to slightly outperform the average. The hon. Lady can correct me if I am wrong, but there is a feeling that this is where she and others get the idea that that is possible only if there was some unfairness in the intake of children the schools accept.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I suppose, having said that the hon. Lady can correct me, I cannot really stop her.

[Lizzi Collinge]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. It is not a belief that the profile of faith schools is different from other schools: it is true. If we look at the rates of free school meals and the wealth profile of parents and compare them with peers—if we compare apples with apples—the data shows that. Does he recognise that?

[Damian Hinds]

As I said earlier, there are all manner of datasets. I do not have my full Excel complement with me today, but I can trade with the hon. Lady and counter what she said with other statistics. In particular, anybody who suggests that the intake of a Catholic school is higher up the socioeconomic scale than the average does not know a whole lot about the demographics of the Catholic population in this country. We have a remarkable amount of ethnic diversity because of immigration patterns.

By the way, there is no such thing as 100% faith selection; that happens only if a school is oversubscribed. If a state-funded school has spare places, at the end of the day, it is obliged to let anybody come along. However, if a school is oversubscribed and we lose the faith admissions criterion, the nature of the school will change. That goes to the heart of the hon. Lady’s question. There is something intrinsic to having a faith designation and a faith ethos in a school. Some people—I accept that the hon. Lady is not one of them—believe that such things contribute to what happens to those children, their education and their wellbeing, and they are reflected even in that small average premium in terms of results.

Back in the days of the free schools and before them, as the hon. Lady mentioned, a 50% cap was put in place, known commonly as the 50% faith cap. That reflected the fact that with free schools there was a different situation, because now any group could come along and say, “We want to open a school.” It seemed a sensible safeguard to have a cap. However, all the way through it has remained legally possible—not a lot of people know this—to open a voluntary aided school. That proposition was tested in law in 2012, after the coalition Government came into office, with the St Richard Reynolds Catholic college in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham. Once a VA school is opened, it can convert to an academy.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Amendment 48 does not seek to prevent faith schools from opening. It would simply apply the cap to any type of school—academy, maintained, voluntary aided or whatever.

For me, the main driver for that safeguard is social cohesion and ethnic diversity. We have talked a lot about Church schools, but there are other faiths that seek to set up schools in certain areas of the country where, without the cap in place, they would not get much racial diversity. That is worrying for community cohesion. I say that as somebody who has a strong personal faith. I send both my children to a Church of England school—mainly because it is in front of my house, so they can leave the house 30 seconds before the gate shuts—but I feel uncomfortable with its level of faith selection. As we heard in oral evidence from Nigel Genders, it is important that state-funded schools be for the whole community and be open to everyone.

[Damian Hinds]

That is a view. It is a perfectly legitimate view that some people hold, but it is not a view that I hold, nor is it a view that we have held historically in this country. Going back to 1944, to 1870 and even further, we have said that we believe in diversity of provision. That includes the Church of England and the Catholic Church, but it also includes other faiths. Some of the top-performing schools in the country are Jewish schools or Muslim schools.

[Munira Wilson]

I think the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am arguing that we should abolish faith schools. I have not made that argument. He is saying that this is not how we have done things in this country, but since the coalition and before, we have had a 50% faith cap. All the amendment seeks is clarity in legislation that that 50% faith cap will remain in place for any new school that opens. I realise that it was the Liberal Democrats who forced the Conservatives to put the cap in place for free schools, which is probably why the right hon. Gentleman will oppose me. For me, it is about social cohesion and about honouring the fact that we should serve all our communities. I am not opposing the establishment of new faith schools; I am just saying that they should have a cap of 50% on faith-based admissions.

[Damian Hinds]

I assure the hon. Lady that on this occasion I am not holding her Liberal Democrat party membership card against her. That is not the basis on which I am making these points.

The hon. Lady said that whatever type of school opens, it should have a 50% cap. By definition, there is no such thing as a VA school with a 50% cap, because being a voluntary aided school means having control over admissions in that way. It is not true that we have necessarily had the 50% cap all the way through; I point to the VA school that opened in her very constituency, and there have been others since then. The reason why only a small handful of VA schools have opened over the past couple of decades is that there was no money for it. To get money to open a school, it had to be a free school.

In 2018-19, the then Secretary of State, fine fellow that he was, created a small capital fund for the voluntary aided schools capital scheme. The reason related to patterns of immigration, particularly Polish and eastern European immigration. In the old days, it was Irish immigration—that is where I come from—but there have been many other waves from different places. As a result of eastern European immigration, there was a demand for Catholic schools in certain parts of the country. Those people, who had come to this country and made their lives here, and of whom there were now generations, were not able to access such schools in the way they could have in other parts of the country. Under that scheme, there were applications from five different faiths; at the time, one was approved and one put on hold. I contend that it is a good system that we have the cap for that tranche of schools—they are not going to be free schools—to retain those safeguards, but it is still possible to open a denominational school, of whichever faith, in circumstances in which there is great need in a particular area.

We talked earlier about local authority areas and their difference in size. Birmingham, which is one massive local authority area, is very different from an individual London borough. For the consideration of faith school applications, it ought to be possible to look over a wider area, because travel-to-school distances are much longer on average.

I want to check with the Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, that the Government’s proposals will not preclude the opening of new voluntary aided schools. I am afraid I must conclude by saying that, for reasons that the hon. Member for Twickenham will understand and that have nothing to do with her party affiliation, I cannot support amendment 48.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I rise to support clause 51 and to question the nature of the amendments.

The block on new local authority-run schools could only have been introduced for ideological reasons. Its removal is hugely welcome. If one model were of substantially better quality than the other, there might be a basis for such a block, but the facts speak for themselves: that is not the case. There is now a statistically negligible difference between the number of good and outstanding academies and the number of good and outstanding schools of other models, including local authority schools. It is plain for all to see that they are as good as each other, so the argument no longer holds water that one model is worse than the other and that legislation is therefore needed to block it.

I fully relate to the experience mentioned by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, where the only option is a free school application that then gets shut down. In my Southampton constituency, we put forward an excellent bid—all the advice throughout the process deemed it excellent—for a free special school. We are all painfully aware of the need for extra places for those with special educational needs and disabilities. With a free school application as our only option, we dutifully engaged, only to have that option shut down to us in the end. That pushes the responsibility back on existing schools to expand, entirely at the cost of already cash-strapped local authorities.

The clause is a sensible restoration of parity of esteem between different school models. On the rationale for objections and scrutiny, I have to say that am left a little confused by the Opposition’s positions and arguments. They question the local authority’s being both the regulator and provider of schools. If they do not support that, what is their solution? Is it for the local authority to become redundant and have no role in planning, so we therefore have centralisation back to the Department for Education? Or is it that we continue to prohibit local authority schools from opening, thereby reducing the mixed economy and maintaining their free school presumption, which got us into this situation in the first place?

I am glad that we have clause 51 in the Bill. It is a strong response to a real need. It takes account of the reality of quality and democratic accountability in school place planning and the opening up of schools. It reflects the fact that we have excellent teachers in local authority maintained schools, every bit as much as in other models of school where they choose to work. It opens up opportunities for multiple bids from school providers. That reflects the position set out in the preceding clauses, which is that we want to get back to a position of collaboration, not unbridled competition, in the provision of education for our children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

On clause 56, it is always possible that necessary changes to legislation might be identified through a Bill’s passage. As I said, it is therefore prudent to have a failsafe should anything have been missed. This power is limited and narrow: it can be used only to make amendments that are consequential on the Bill’s provisions, which will be voted on, and it is in line with usual practice.

Regulations made under the power that amend or repeal any provision in primary legislation will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have carefully considered the power, and we believe that it is entirely justified in this case. It is needed to ensure that we are able to deal with the legislative consequences that may flow naturally from the main provisions and ensure that other legislation continues to work properly following the passage of the Bill.

[Damian Hinds]

Will the Minister allow me?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Well—yeah.

[Damian Hinds]

I have never been so warmly welcomed. [Laughter.] We talked a few sittings ago about the NHS number and the database of children, and there are a lot of wide-open questions about the scope of that. Is that all children? How will it be used? In turn, that could potentially affect a lot of other pieces of legislation.

Bearing in mind the massive controversies we have had in this country in the past over ID cards, privacy and so on, will the Minister write to the Committee setting out specifically what some of the issues in relation to that might be? We do not want find ourselves having agreed to do something that we did not realise we were agreeing to do.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. The inclusion of similar powers is common and well-precedented in legislation. Powers to make consequential amendments can be found in several other Government Bills, such as the Renters’ Rights Bill and the Employment Rights Bill, as well as in Acts presented under the previous Administration, such as the Health and Care Act 2022, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is fully supportive of.

I turn to new clause 10 and the contributions from hon. Members. I absolutely appreciate the case that is being made, which is why we are open-minded on the issue, but we do not intend to bring forward legislation imminently. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire spoke about the successful implementation in Wales. I am interested in how she knows that to be the case, because we are awaiting the publication of the impact assessment. We are very keen that legislation is evidence-based and has its intended effect. That is why we are waiting for the evidence that will come from Wales.

The hon. Member mentioned a number of international examples. I have an example from New Zealand, which removed the reasonable punishment defence in 2007. Data suggests that 13 cases were investigated between 2007 and 2009, with one prosecution. It is important that we look at how this measure works within the context of each country that it is applying it. Obviously, we will look very closely at the implementation in Wales—the impact it has and the difference it makes—and will also then look at how that will apply specifically within an England context before proceeding with legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Damian Hinds]

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

[Darren Paffey]

Briefly, I warmly welcome the new clause. Colleagues will be aware of my interest in this area. From years of working alongside those who fall foul of laws and principles on paper that they never see, but that make a material difference to their lives and outcomes, I know that this will be a positive change. It builds on years of work, including not only the work of various charities already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, but the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) and no doubt countless others, and will be warmly welcomed. I am excited to be able to report to those in my constituency on the work of this Government in making sure that care leavers have better outcomes. I look forward to working with Ministers in the future to work out how we can get from this point to other areas that will make a positive material difference to their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I know my hon. Friend is a real champion of children and young people in his constituency, and of the Government’s ambitions on breakfast clubs. I hope that he will work closely with schools in his constituency as we roll out breakfast clubs in his patch and, indeed, across the country. He makes a number of really important points about the vital need to get the infrastructure in place for free school meals. We know that that is some of the learning from the work that the London Mayor has been doing.

[Damian Hinds]

I want to ask the Minister about two things. First, he talks about the disadvantage gap widening at the present time. Entirely coincidentally, I happen to have the numbers on key stage 2 and key stage 4. Of course, there are different ways that we can measure these things. I am looking at what is known as the “disadvantage gap index” for key stage 2 and key stage 4. I would be interested to know what definition he is using, from which he concludes that the Government inherited a widening disadvantage gap.

The second thing I want to ask him about is free school meal eligibility. We all absolutely recognise the value of free school meals. The Minister mentioned some of the extensions of eligibility that happened under the previous Government. The one that he did not mention was universal credit transitional protection. Even though unemployment came down from 8% to 4.5%, and the proportion of people in work but on low pay halved as a result of the increase to the national living wage, eligibility for free school meals went up, so the incoming Government have inherited one in three children being able to get a free school meal, as opposed to one in six when Labour were last in government. Notwithstanding this new clause, which the Government will not accept, what will they do to make sure that the same number of children as now can continue to get a free school meal?

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. Indeed, that is the case that we are making. That means having good and great schools, and that is the ultimate aim of all these provisions: to ensure that every child has a good local school in which they can achieve and thrive. There needs to be some way in which that is managed on a community-wide basis. I would be surprised if the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston were seriously objecting to that in principle.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I seek some clarity. The Minister seems to be saying, “Leave it up to the independent adjudicator. They will decide.” Is she saying that the Government will not issue guidance on the criteria on which an independent adjudicator should decide?

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, that is not what I said. I was responding to the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston.

These measures are being introduced to support local authorities with effective place planning. In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about how we know that this challenge needs action, a 2022 report commissioned by the Department for Education under the previous Government reported that

“unilateral decisions about PANs and admissions…was identified by 89% of LAs”

as a barrier to fulfilling their responsibilities for mainstream school place planning. Some 13% of local authorities reported that

“this occurred regularly, 41% occasionally, and 34% rarely”.

Local authorities were more likely to report that this barrier was more common when working with academies. Those are the findings of the Department’s own report, which was commissioned under the last Government.

To be clear, the measure is not about removing any and all surplus places from the school system, including where it is useful, for example, in ensuring parental choice and flexibility in the system to accommodate future demand for school places. This is about ensuring that the places on offer in an area adequately reflect the needs of that local community. Where there is large surplus capacity, that can have a detrimental impact on good schools. It could result in significant upheaval for children and damage local parental choice. This is about supporting local authorities to ensure that they have the right amount of school places in their local area. There is already a statutory obligation on that. This measure will support local authorities to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman has made his concerns known. I do not think he is making any new assertions. It might be helpful if I continue setting out why we do not accept the proposed amendments.

[Damian Hinds]

Just before she does, will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Perhaps at the end if there are still questions I would be more than happy to address them.

[Damian Hinds]

It is a different but related question. There are falling rolls, initially in primary over the next few years, and then it will happen in secondary. There will be some difficult choices that someone will need to make. Sometimes that will mean varying the numbers in every school, but I am afraid that the scale of the change in some local authorities, particularly in urban areas and this city, is such that some schools may convert and become special schools, for which there is demand and need. Some may become early years settings. It might be the case—I hope it will not be, as it is always a difficult thing to do—that total education capacity has to reduce. Will it be the schools adjudicator who decides the school that closes?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Local authorities make decisions about place planning within their local area. There will be a duty on all schools within a local area to co-operate with the local authority on place planning and admissions. The clause and the Bill extend to academies the ability to object to the school adjudicator, which gives them the ability to present their case where there is a challenge. Clause 50, which I will come to shortly, includes a delegated power that enables the Government to make regulations that set out factors that the adjudicator must consider when setting the published admission number of the school after it has upheld an objection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Will the Minister confirm that the power to set place numbers includes all schools in local authority areas? It is not just academies but maintained schools. There seems to have been an idea throughout the whole of this debate that maintained schools are somehow a lower echelon of education—

[Damian Hinds]

Who said that?

[Amanda Martin]

It seems to have been implied—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The focus here has been on where it goes wrong, but actually, in the vast majority of cases, local authorities are collaborating well, because fundamentally everybody has the same goal, which is to provide an education that enables children to achieve and thrive. That needs to be delivered for every child in a local area, and clearly that is what this legislation is intended to achieve.

Where local authorities need more places in an area, we and they would clearly encourage high-performing schools to work in collaboration with local authorities to meet that need. However, where admission authorities act unilaterally, without recognising the needs of or impact on their local communities, that can cause problems, not just for local authorities or neighbouring schools but, ultimately, for children and parents.

In some areas, local authorities struggle to fulfil their responsibility to ensure sufficient school places, because the published admission numbers set by individual admission authorities do not meet local needs, despite there being physical capacity in schools. In other areas, schools are increasing their admission number beyond what is needed, risking damage to the education that children receive at nearby schools by making it harder for school leaders to plan the best education for their children. In the worst-case scenario, it could lead to perfectly good schools becoming unviable and therefore reduce choice for parents.

Where agreement cannot be reached locally, and a local authority or another body or person brings an objection to a school’s published admission number to the schools adjudicator, the adjudicator must, as now, come to their own independent decision as to whether to uphold the objection, taking into account the views of all parties, the requirements of admissions law and the individual circumstances of the case. It is important to note that the measure does not enable local authorities to directly change the published admission number of any school for which it is not the admission authority. The adjudicator, not the local authority, is the decision maker and they will take an independent and impartial decision. The provisions of clause 50 ensure that where they uphold an objection to a school’s published admission number—

[Damian Hinds]

So it is not the local authority; it is the adjudicator. I am wondering, as we are talking about serving communities, where the line of democratic accountability is.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps questioning the very long-standing process—it has been in existence for quite some time—for the role of the adjudicator in making these decisions where it cannot be decided within a local authority area on a collaborative basis. Obviously, the ideal situation is that local authorities and all the schools within the area are able to co-operate and collaborate to ensure that any individual admission number is set at the right level for the local community, taking into account the broader context. There is clear democratic accountability in that. Where that process breaks down, the adjudicator is there to be an independent arbitrator. Those requirements are set out in law; the framework that they work to and the factors that they consider are set out in guidance that is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is clear and transparent, and the adjudicator is bound by the laws in that case.

--- Later in debate ---

We do not expect that the powers in the clause will be needed for most schools, because most published admission numbers are working effectively, but in the rare instances where a school’s published admission number is not working in the interests of the local community, where it risks undermining parents’ ability to access a local school where their child can achieve and thrive—

[Damian Hinds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Does the right hon. Gentleman mind if I just finish? It may answer his question.

In the instances I just described, the powers in the clause provide a direct route for an independent decision, resulting in a clear outcome for parents, admission authorities and local authorities.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do mean these questions genuinely, in the spirit of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and trying to ascertain unintended consequences, intent and so on. If the adjudicator now has responsibility for ensuring that the number of school places in an area is what is needed and is fair, does the adjudicator also have a say in allowing a school to open?

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is the local authority that has the responsibility to agree published admission numbers with the schools in its area. Obviously, academies are their own admissions authority, and will set their own published admission number. The adjudicator becomes involved in the decision making where appeals are made to a school’s chosen published admission number. The adjudicator is then required to come to a decision, based on a very clear framework of factors to consider, as to whether the published admission number is fair in the context of the particular school and the local community. What was the right hon. Gentleman’s specific question?

[Damian Hinds]

Does the adjudicator also have a say in allowing a school to open?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I cannot envisage a scenario where an adjudicator would adjudicate on the opening of a new school. If it adjudicates on the published admission numbers of existing schools, I cannot foresee a scenario where there would be an appeal to the adjudicator for a school that does not exist.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I apologise, but I still do not see the relevance to how an adjudicator could open a new school. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman after I have considered the issue further.

[Damian Hinds]

It may help if I say why I asked the question. The adjudicator will be worrying, “I need to make sure that a school over here isn’t creating unfairness or making another school unviable because there are too many school places in this area.” If someone else comes along and says, “I’m going to open a new one,” that will make the school even more unviable. Logically, if I am the adjudicator and the Government are tasking me with making sure that we are not making schools unviable, surely I should be able to veto a new school coming into the community.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is not that the adjudicator makes the decision about whether to open a new school, which is how the question was originally posed. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the hypothetical outcome that the adjudicator’s involvement in a decision could result in—

[Damian Hinds]

No, I am asking directly: could the adjudicator stop a new school opening on the grounds that we have tasked the adjudicator with making sure that there is not excess capacity in an area, which might make one or more schools unviable? Logically, surely the adjudicator ought to be able to stop the problem getting even worse—in the eyes of Ministers—by refusing a new school opening.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will have to take away that question, and I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with a response. Obviously, the adjudicator currently has a role in certain cases—for example, where a local authority is involved in the foundation of a school. I will look at the specific example that he raises, and I am happy to write to him with a response.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)]

I rise to speak to clause 51, because there are some points I wish to raise about this part of the Bill allowing new schools to have 100% faith selection.

Clause 51 allows new schools to be opened without ideological restrictions on their type; they could be academies, community schools or voluntary aided schools, which in my view is extremely welcome; but it also creates the ability to open new 100% faith-selective schools, which worries me. The current 50% cap on faith selection for academies was introduced by the Labour Government in 2007, and further embedded into free schools in 2010 by the coalition Government. The Education Act 2011 mandated that all new schools must be free schools, extending the cap’s reach. That 50% limit was supported by all three main parties.

A scheme of local authority competitions similar to the one proposed in the clause operated from 2007 to 2012, in which we saw 100% faith-selective schools open. For example, Cambridgeshire county council ran a competition for a new school in which a 100% selective Church of England school won out over a proposal for a school with no religious character; the resultant school opened in 2017 and is still 100% faith selective. Another 100% religiously selective school was approved in the Peterborough council area. This has happened when the legislation has allowed for it.

We heard in the first evidence session that the Catholic Education Service would seek, in areas of oversubscription, to use 100% faith selection. We heard from the Church of England that nationally its policy is to stick to 50%, but its structure means that dioceses can put forward proposals for new schools, and they are not bound by that national policy. Members might be sitting here thinking, “So what? What is the problem with 100% faith-selective schools?” The problem is that 100% faith-selective schools are less socioeconomically diverse than might be expected for their catchment area, and less socioeconomically diverse than schools that are subject to the 50% cap. Compared with their 50% selective peers, 100% faith-selective schools are also less ethnically diverse than would be expected. Faith selective schools remain less inclusive across multiple factors. In my view, 100% faith selective admissions only exacerbate inequalities in the school system.

The Sutton Trust found that faith schools are less inclusive of disadvantaged children. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator found that faith-selective schools are less inclusive of children in care. The London School of Economics found that faith-selective schools are less inclusive of children with special educational needs and disabilities. Faith-selective admissions also disproportionately favour wealthier families, because they are socioeconomically more selective than other types of school. Compared with other schools, faith-selective schools admit fewer children eligible for free school meals than would be expected for their catchment area.

Many faith-selective schools operate a system of scoring for religious attendance and volunteering. In my view, this activity is simply easier for those with more economic or social capital—those who do not work weekends, nights or shifts, and who have a professional background where one is very happy and comfortable going into a new environment; perhaps one went to church as a child. At least since the 1950s, data shows that church attendance is higher among wealthier people. This religious activity is less easy to take part in for those who work shifts or weekends and those who do not have the cultural or social capital to enter confidently a situation that is new or perhaps culturally alien. I am focusing on church attendance because the religious majority in our country is Christian, even though actual religious belief is low.

Faith-selective schools encourage and embed educational inequalities, and that is why I am concerned about lifting the 50% faith-selection cap. I merely ask Ministers to consider this.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to amendment 48, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham. There are two main reasons people seek to limit school admissions on the basis of faith. The first is that some people do not like religion, organised religion, or the involvement of the state with organised religion. That is a matter of belief for some people. The second is that it is sometimes said that faith-based admission policies shut out others from good schools. There is sometimes a sense that it is academic or social selection by the back door. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale alluded to that. Some people—I am not saying this is the case with the hon. Lady—talk about the second issue when really they have in mind the first. One can be a proxy for the other.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

Before the hon. Lady corrects me, I did not say she was doing that.

[Lizzi Collinge]

I do not wish to correct the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he is correct that the two get confused. I have both of those beliefs.

[Damian Hinds]

I know! [Laughter.]

[Lizzi Collinge]

However I am very clear the evidence I am quoting is on the second of those. I would happily provide the right hon. Gentleman with the sources of evidence, should he like to peruse them.

[Damian Hinds]

I understand, acknowledge and respect what the hon. Lady says but, believe me, I do not need to see any more evidence on this subject, on which I have in my time perused large volumes. It is one of those issues—we talked the other day about another one—where the answer one wants can be found in the data.

Let us step back a moment. All liberal democracies permit freedom of religious belief, but the way it manifests is different in different countries. There can be an approach such as that in the United States or in France, where secularism in education is written into law or the constitution. We in this country have taken a different approach. We have always allowed denominational schools. In fact, we have not just “allowed” it; denominational schools and faith schools have always been a key part of the system. The biggest name in primary education in Britain is the Church of the England; the biggest name in secondary education in England is the Catholic Church.

It is not just in education that our country has this tradition. In international development, for example, the Government work closely with organisations such as Christian Aid, World Vision and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development. In children’s services, the Children’s Society used to be called the Church of England Children’s Society, and Action for Children, formerly National Children’s Home, has its roots in Methodism.

Before there were state schools, there were faith schools, often attached to monasteries or cathedrals. The Education Act 1944 formalised this position, sometimes known as the dual system, whereby faith schools could be a full part of the state school system while retaining their religious character. There is a distinction between what are known as voluntary aided schools and voluntary controlled schools, and different degrees therefore of independence for those two. VA tends to be mostly associated with the Catholic Church, but there are lots of Anglican VA schools, and VA schools of five or six other religious denominations as well.

It is understood traditionally and generally, but not entirely correctly that with a VA school, the Church provides the land and the state provides the building, and that there is a sort of co-ownership—it is obviously minority ownership on the part of the religious organisation. In reality, over time that system was eroded and changed to a cash contribution in which, typically, 10% would come from the Church, which then became 5%. I think there were some cases in which it was 0%, but broadly that tended to be the situation. Sometimes Churches complain about that, saying, “Why should we have to contribute to this school, when any other school being created is fully funded by the state?” I think that is a good rule for two reasons. First, it is a privilege to be able to have a school that is fully state funded for pupils within a faith, but it is also a guarantee of independence. It means that no future Government can come along and say, “We are going to change all these schools into fully secular schools,” because they are part-owned—albeit a small part—by that religious faith.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question of schools having a faith element, being run by a Church or by any faith group, is different from the question of whether, in their admissions policy, a school may discriminate against one child and in favour of another based on the professed faith of their parents? Does he agree that those are two separate issues?

[Damian Hinds]

They are different but related issues. For the avoidance of any confusion, when we talk about schools being “run” by a Church, there was a time when clerics ran schools, but things are not really done in that way today.

Some of the top-performing schools in the country are denominational schools with faith-based admissions. There are some very poor-performing faith schools and some brilliantly performing non-faith schools, and obviously it varies from year to year, but on average, faith schools tend to slightly outperform the average. The hon. Lady can correct me if I am wrong, but there is a feeling that this is where she and others get the idea that that is possible only if there was some unfairness in the intake of children the schools accept.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I suppose, having said that the hon. Lady can correct me, I cannot really stop her.

[Lizzi Collinge]

The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. It is not a belief that the profile of faith schools is different from other schools: it is true. If we look at the rates of free school meals and the wealth profile of parents and compare them with peers—if we compare apples with apples—the data shows that. Does he recognise that?

[Damian Hinds]

As I said earlier, there are all manner of datasets. I do not have my full Excel complement with me today, but I can trade with the hon. Lady and counter what she said with other statistics. In particular, anybody who suggests that the intake of a Catholic school is higher up the socioeconomic scale than the average does not know a whole lot about the demographics of the Catholic population in this country. We have a remarkable amount of ethnic diversity because of immigration patterns.

By the way, there is no such thing as 100% faith selection; that happens only if a school is oversubscribed. If a state-funded school has spare places, at the end of the day, it is obliged to let anybody come along. However, if a school is oversubscribed and we lose the faith admissions criterion, the nature of the school will change. That goes to the heart of the hon. Lady’s question. There is something intrinsic to having a faith designation and a faith ethos in a school. Some people—I accept that the hon. Lady is not one of them—believe that such things contribute to what happens to those children, their education and their wellbeing, and they are reflected even in that small average premium in terms of results.

Back in the days of the free schools and before them, as the hon. Lady mentioned, a 50% cap was put in place, known commonly as the 50% faith cap. That reflected the fact that with free schools there was a different situation, because now any group could come along and say, “We want to open a school.” It seemed a sensible safeguard to have a cap. However, all the way through it has remained legally possible—not a lot of people know this—to open a voluntary aided school. That proposition was tested in law in 2012, after the coalition Government came into office, with the St Richard Reynolds Catholic college in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham. Once a VA school is opened, it can convert to an academy.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Amendment 48 does not seek to prevent faith schools from opening. It would simply apply the cap to any type of school—academy, maintained, voluntary aided or whatever.

For me, the main driver for that safeguard is social cohesion and ethnic diversity. We have talked a lot about Church schools, but there are other faiths that seek to set up schools in certain areas of the country where, without the cap in place, they would not get much racial diversity. That is worrying for community cohesion. I say that as somebody who has a strong personal faith. I send both my children to a Church of England school—mainly because it is in front of my house, so they can leave the house 30 seconds before the gate shuts—but I feel uncomfortable with its level of faith selection. As we heard in oral evidence from Nigel Genders, it is important that state-funded schools be for the whole community and be open to everyone.

[Damian Hinds]

That is a view. It is a perfectly legitimate view that some people hold, but it is not a view that I hold, nor is it a view that we have held historically in this country. Going back to 1944, to 1870 and even further, we have said that we believe in diversity of provision. That includes the Church of England and the Catholic Church, but it also includes other faiths. Some of the top-performing schools in the country are Jewish schools or Muslim schools.

[Munira Wilson]

I think the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am arguing that we should abolish faith schools. I have not made that argument. He is saying that this is not how we have done things in this country, but since the coalition and before, we have had a 50% faith cap. All the amendment seeks is clarity in legislation that that 50% faith cap will remain in place for any new school that opens. I realise that it was the Liberal Democrats who forced the Conservatives to put the cap in place for free schools, which is probably why the right hon. Gentleman will oppose me. For me, it is about social cohesion and about honouring the fact that we should serve all our communities. I am not opposing the establishment of new faith schools; I am just saying that they should have a cap of 50% on faith-based admissions.

[Damian Hinds]

I assure the hon. Lady that on this occasion I am not holding her Liberal Democrat party membership card against her. That is not the basis on which I am making these points.

The hon. Lady said that whatever type of school opens, it should have a 50% cap. By definition, there is no such thing as a VA school with a 50% cap, because being a voluntary aided school means having control over admissions in that way. It is not true that we have necessarily had the 50% cap all the way through; I point to the VA school that opened in her very constituency, and there have been others since then. The reason why only a small handful of VA schools have opened over the past couple of decades is that there was no money for it. To get money to open a school, it had to be a free school.

In 2018-19, the then Secretary of State, fine fellow that he was, created a small capital fund for the voluntary aided schools capital scheme. The reason related to patterns of immigration, particularly Polish and eastern European immigration. In the old days, it was Irish immigration—that is where I come from—but there have been many other waves from different places. As a result of eastern European immigration, there was a demand for Catholic schools in certain parts of the country. Those people, who had come to this country and made their lives here, and of whom there were now generations, were not able to access such schools in the way they could have in other parts of the country. Under that scheme, there were applications from five different faiths; at the time, one was approved and one put on hold. I contend that it is a good system that we have the cap for that tranche of schools—they are not going to be free schools—to retain those safeguards, but it is still possible to open a denominational school, of whichever faith, in circumstances in which there is great need in a particular area.

We talked earlier about local authority areas and their difference in size. Birmingham, which is one massive local authority area, is very different from an individual London borough. For the consideration of faith school applications, it ought to be possible to look over a wider area, because travel-to-school distances are much longer on average.

I want to check with the Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North, that the Government’s proposals will not preclude the opening of new voluntary aided schools. I am afraid I must conclude by saying that, for reasons that the hon. Member for Twickenham will understand and that have nothing to do with her party affiliation, I cannot support amendment 48.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I rise to support clause 51 and to question the nature of the amendments.

The block on new local authority-run schools could only have been introduced for ideological reasons. Its removal is hugely welcome. If one model were of substantially better quality than the other, there might be a basis for such a block, but the facts speak for themselves: that is not the case. There is now a statistically negligible difference between the number of good and outstanding academies and the number of good and outstanding schools of other models, including local authority schools. It is plain for all to see that they are as good as each other, so the argument no longer holds water that one model is worse than the other and that legislation is therefore needed to block it.

I fully relate to the experience mentioned by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, where the only option is a free school application that then gets shut down. In my Southampton constituency, we put forward an excellent bid—all the advice throughout the process deemed it excellent—for a free special school. We are all painfully aware of the need for extra places for those with special educational needs and disabilities. With a free school application as our only option, we dutifully engaged, only to have that option shut down to us in the end. That pushes the responsibility back on existing schools to expand, entirely at the cost of already cash-strapped local authorities.

The clause is a sensible restoration of parity of esteem between different school models. On the rationale for objections and scrutiny, I have to say that am left a little confused by the Opposition’s positions and arguments. They question the local authority’s being both the regulator and provider of schools. If they do not support that, what is their solution? Is it for the local authority to become redundant and have no role in planning, so we therefore have centralisation back to the Department for Education? Or is it that we continue to prohibit local authority schools from opening, thereby reducing the mixed economy and maintaining their free school presumption, which got us into this situation in the first place?

I am glad that we have clause 51 in the Bill. It is a strong response to a real need. It takes account of the reality of quality and democratic accountability in school place planning and the opening up of schools. It reflects the fact that we have excellent teachers in local authority maintained schools, every bit as much as in other models of school where they choose to work. It opens up opportunities for multiple bids from school providers. That reflects the position set out in the preceding clauses, which is that we want to get back to a position of collaboration, not unbridled competition, in the provision of education for our children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

On clause 56, it is always possible that necessary changes to legislation might be identified through a Bill’s passage. As I said, it is therefore prudent to have a failsafe should anything have been missed. This power is limited and narrow: it can be used only to make amendments that are consequential on the Bill’s provisions, which will be voted on, and it is in line with usual practice.

Regulations made under the power that amend or repeal any provision in primary legislation will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have carefully considered the power, and we believe that it is entirely justified in this case. It is needed to ensure that we are able to deal with the legislative consequences that may flow naturally from the main provisions and ensure that other legislation continues to work properly following the passage of the Bill.

[Damian Hinds]

Will the Minister allow me?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Well—yeah.

[Damian Hinds]

I have never been so warmly welcomed. [Laughter.] We talked a few sittings ago about the NHS number and the database of children, and there are a lot of wide-open questions about the scope of that. Is that all children? How will it be used? In turn, that could potentially affect a lot of other pieces of legislation.

Bearing in mind the massive controversies we have had in this country in the past over ID cards, privacy and so on, will the Minister write to the Committee setting out specifically what some of the issues in relation to that might be? We do not want find ourselves having agreed to do something that we did not realise we were agreeing to do.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. The inclusion of similar powers is common and well-precedented in legislation. Powers to make consequential amendments can be found in several other Government Bills, such as the Renters’ Rights Bill and the Employment Rights Bill, as well as in Acts presented under the previous Administration, such as the Health and Care Act 2022, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is fully supportive of.

I turn to new clause 10 and the contributions from hon. Members. I absolutely appreciate the case that is being made, which is why we are open-minded on the issue, but we do not intend to bring forward legislation imminently. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire spoke about the successful implementation in Wales. I am interested in how she knows that to be the case, because we are awaiting the publication of the impact assessment. We are very keen that legislation is evidence-based and has its intended effect. That is why we are waiting for the evidence that will come from Wales.

The hon. Member mentioned a number of international examples. I have an example from New Zealand, which removed the reasonable punishment defence in 2007. Data suggests that 13 cases were investigated between 2007 and 2009, with one prosecution. It is important that we look at how this measure works within the context of each country that it is applying it. Obviously, we will look very closely at the implementation in Wales—the impact it has and the difference it makes—and will also then look at how that will apply specifically within an England context before proceeding with legislation.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson (Derby North) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Damian Hinds]

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

[Darren Paffey]

Briefly, I warmly welcome the new clause. Colleagues will be aware of my interest in this area. From years of working alongside those who fall foul of laws and principles on paper that they never see, but that make a material difference to their lives and outcomes, I know that this will be a positive change. It builds on years of work, including not only the work of various charities already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, but the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) and no doubt countless others, and will be warmly welcomed. I am excited to be able to report to those in my constituency on the work of this Government in making sure that care leavers have better outcomes. I look forward to working with Ministers in the future to work out how we can get from this point to other areas that will make a positive material difference to their lives.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I know my hon. Friend is a real champion of children and young people in his constituency, and of the Government’s ambitions on breakfast clubs. I hope that he will work closely with schools in his constituency as we roll out breakfast clubs in his patch and, indeed, across the country. He makes a number of really important points about the vital need to get the infrastructure in place for free school meals. We know that that is some of the learning from the work that the London Mayor has been doing.

[Damian Hinds]

I want to ask the Minister about two things. First, he talks about the disadvantage gap widening at the present time. Entirely coincidentally, I happen to have the numbers on key stage 2 and key stage 4. Of course, there are different ways that we can measure these things. I am looking at what is known as the “disadvantage gap index” for key stage 2 and key stage 4. I would be interested to know what definition he is using, from which he concludes that the Government inherited a widening disadvantage gap.

The second thing I want to ask him about is free school meal eligibility. We all absolutely recognise the value of free school meals. The Minister mentioned some of the extensions of eligibility that happened under the previous Government. The one that he did not mention was universal credit transitional protection. Even though unemployment came down from 8% to 4.5%, and the proportion of people in work but on low pay halved as a result of the increase to the national living wage, eligibility for free school meals went up, so the incoming Government have inherited one in three children being able to get a free school meal, as opposed to one in six when Labour were last in government. Notwithstanding this new clause, which the Government will not accept, what will they do to make sure that the same number of children as now can continue to get a free school meal?

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Eleventh sitting)

Damian Hinds Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend puts it very well. Indeed, that is the case that we are making. That means having good and great schools, and that is the ultimate aim of all these provisions: to ensure that every child has a good local school in which they can achieve and thrive. There needs to be some way in which that is managed on a community-wide basis. I would be surprised if the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston were seriously objecting to that in principle.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I seek some clarity. The Minister seems to be saying, “Leave it up to the independent adjudicator. They will decide.” Is she saying that the Government will not issue guidance on the criteria on which an independent adjudicator should decide?

[Catherine McKinnell]

No, that is not what I said. I was responding to the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston.

These measures are being introduced to support local authorities with effective place planning. In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about how we know that this challenge needs action, a 2022 report commissioned by the Department for Education under the previous Government reported that

“unilateral decisions about PANs and admissions…was identified by 89% of LAs”

as a barrier to fulfilling their responsibilities for mainstream school place planning. Some 13% of local authorities reported that

“this occurred regularly, 41% occasionally, and 34% rarely”.

Local authorities were more likely to report that this barrier was more common when working with academies. Those are the findings of the Department’s own report, which was commissioned under the last Government.

To be clear, the measure is not about removing any and all surplus places from the school system, including where it is useful, for example, in ensuring parental choice and flexibility in the system to accommodate future demand for school places. This is about ensuring that the places on offer in an area adequately reflect the needs of that local community. Where there is large surplus capacity, that can have a detrimental impact on good schools. It could result in significant upheaval for children and damage local parental choice. This is about supporting local authorities to ensure that they have the right amount of school places in their local area. There is already a statutory obligation on that. This measure will support local authorities to achieve that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman has made his concerns known. I do not think he is making any new assertions. It might be helpful if I continue setting out why we do not accept the proposed amendments.

[Damian Hinds]

Just before she does, will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Perhaps at the end if there are still questions I would be more than happy to address them.

[Damian Hinds]

It is a different but related question. There are falling rolls, initially in primary over the next few years, and then it will happen in secondary. There will be some difficult choices that someone will need to make. Sometimes that will mean varying the numbers in every school, but I am afraid that the scale of the change in some local authorities, particularly in urban areas and this city, is such that some schools may convert and become special schools, for which there is demand and need. Some may become early years settings. It might be the case—I hope it will not be, as it is always a difficult thing to do—that total education capacity has to reduce. Will it be the schools adjudicator who decides the school that closes?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Local authorities make decisions about place planning within their local area. There will be a duty on all schools within a local area to co-operate with the local authority on place planning and admissions. The clause and the Bill extend to academies the ability to object to the school adjudicator, which gives them the ability to present their case where there is a challenge. Clause 50, which I will come to shortly, includes a delegated power that enables the Government to make regulations that set out factors that the adjudicator must consider when setting the published admission number of the school after it has upheld an objection.

--- Later in debate ---

[Amanda Martin]

Will the Minister confirm that the power to set place numbers includes all schools in local authority areas? It is not just academies but maintained schools. There seems to have been an idea throughout the whole of this debate that maintained schools are somehow a lower echelon of education—

[Damian Hinds]

Who said that?

[Amanda Martin]

It seems to have been implied—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point. The focus here has been on where it goes wrong, but actually, in the vast majority of cases, local authorities are collaborating well, because fundamentally everybody has the same goal, which is to provide an education that enables children to achieve and thrive. That needs to be delivered for every child in a local area, and clearly that is what this legislation is intended to achieve.

Where local authorities need more places in an area, we and they would clearly encourage high-performing schools to work in collaboration with local authorities to meet that need. However, where admission authorities act unilaterally, without recognising the needs of or impact on their local communities, that can cause problems, not just for local authorities or neighbouring schools but, ultimately, for children and parents.

In some areas, local authorities struggle to fulfil their responsibility to ensure sufficient school places, because the published admission numbers set by individual admission authorities do not meet local needs, despite there being physical capacity in schools. In other areas, schools are increasing their admission number beyond what is needed, risking damage to the education that children receive at nearby schools by making it harder for school leaders to plan the best education for their children. In the worst-case scenario, it could lead to perfectly good schools becoming unviable and therefore reduce choice for parents.

Where agreement cannot be reached locally, and a local authority or another body or person brings an objection to a school’s published admission number to the schools adjudicator, the adjudicator must, as now, come to their own independent decision as to whether to uphold the objection, taking into account the views of all parties, the requirements of admissions law and the individual circumstances of the case. It is important to note that the measure does not enable local authorities to directly change the published admission number of any school for which it is not the admission authority. The adjudicator, not the local authority, is the decision maker and they will take an independent and impartial decision. The provisions of clause 50 ensure that where they uphold an objection to a school’s published admission number—

[Damian Hinds]

So it is not the local authority; it is the adjudicator. I am wondering, as we are talking about serving communities, where the line of democratic accountability is.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The right hon. Gentleman is perhaps questioning the very long-standing process—it has been in existence for quite some time—for the role of the adjudicator in making these decisions where it cannot be decided within a local authority area on a collaborative basis. Obviously, the ideal situation is that local authorities and all the schools within the area are able to co-operate and collaborate to ensure that any individual admission number is set at the right level for the local community, taking into account the broader context. There is clear democratic accountability in that. Where that process breaks down, the adjudicator is there to be an independent arbitrator. Those requirements are set out in law; the framework that they work to and the factors that they consider are set out in guidance that is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. It is clear and transparent, and the adjudicator is bound by the laws in that case.

--- Later in debate ---

We do not expect that the powers in the clause will be needed for most schools, because most published admission numbers are working effectively, but in the rare instances where a school’s published admission number is not working in the interests of the local community, where it risks undermining parents’ ability to access a local school where their child can achieve and thrive—

[Damian Hinds]

Will the Minister give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Does the right hon. Gentleman mind if I just finish? It may answer his question.

In the instances I just described, the powers in the clause provide a direct route for an independent decision, resulting in a clear outcome for parents, admission authorities and local authorities.

[Damian Hinds]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I do mean these questions genuinely, in the spirit of line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill and trying to ascertain unintended consequences, intent and so on. If the adjudicator now has responsibility for ensuring that the number of school places in an area is what is needed and is fair, does the adjudicator also have a say in allowing a school to open?

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is the local authority that has the responsibility to agree published admission numbers with the schools in its area.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 4WC.] (Correction) Obviously, academies are their own admissions authority, and will set their own published admission number. The adjudicator becomes involved in the decision making where appeals are made to a school’s chosen published admission number. The adjudicator is then required to come to a decision, based on a very clear framework of factors to consider, as to whether the published admission number is fair in the context of the particular school and the local community. What was the right hon. Gentleman’s specific question?

[Damian Hinds]

Does the adjudicator also have a say in allowing a school to open?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I cannot envisage a scenario where an adjudicator would adjudicate on the opening of a new school. If it adjudicates on the published admission numbers of existing schools, I cannot foresee a scenario where there would be an appeal to the adjudicator for a school that does not exist.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I apologise, but I still do not see the relevance to how an adjudicator could open a new school. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman after I have considered the issue further.

[Damian Hinds]

It may help if I say why I asked the question. The adjudicator will be worrying, “I need to make sure that a school over here isn’t creating unfairness or making another school unviable because there are too many school places in this area.” If someone else comes along and says, “I’m going to open a new one,” that will make the school even more unviable. Logically, if I am the adjudicator and the Government are tasking me with making sure that we are not making schools unviable, surely I should be able to veto a new school coming into the community.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. It is not that the adjudicator makes the decision about whether to open a new school, which is how the question was originally posed. The right hon. Gentleman is talking about the hypothetical outcome that the adjudicator’s involvement in a decision could result in—

[Damian Hinds]

No, I am asking directly: could the adjudicator stop a new school opening on the grounds that we have tasked the adjudicator with making sure that there is not excess capacity in an area, which might make one or more schools unviable? Logically, surely the adjudicator ought to be able to stop the problem getting even worse—in the eyes of Ministers—by refusing a new school opening.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I will have to take away that question, and I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with a response. Obviously, the adjudicator currently has a role in certain cases—for example, where a local authority is involved in the foundation of a school. I will look at the specific example that he raises, and I am happy to write to him with a response.