Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)]

Q You have enthused about family group decision making. Do you think it would be useful at other stages in the process, particularly in approaching families for unification at the point of discharge for care leavers?

Dr Homden: Yes, we would support that. We would also call for specific coverage in the statutory guidance on how children with family members abroad can benefit, and for consideration in that guidance on contact, particularly with siblings.

Anne Longfield: I would also look at the mechanism at other points, such as when children are at risk of becoming involved in crime and the like. But for now, yes.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Q I would like to ask about the requirement for local authorities to offer Staying Close. We have seen some success with that in Southampton, but from the direct work of both your organisations, do you think that the Staying Close offer meets the most pressing needs of care leavers, or are there other things that the Bill should consider?

Anne Longfield: Carol will probably talk about the detail more than I will, but in principle it was a really important change to be made and a really important commitment. Young people I have met have appreciated it and seen the value of it. I do not think it is yet at the point where most care leavers would say that it is meeting all their ambitions, nor of course is it anywhere. Having it as part of the Bill, to extend and strengthen it, is important, but it is there to be built on. We know from the outcomes for young people leaving care that it is crucial that that level of stability and support is in place.

Dr Homden: We support the extension of support to care leavers in the Bill. Provisions need to ensure greater consistency across the country in the support that is offered. It is important that the introduction of Staying Close provisions in this case will be offered to care leavers only where the authority assesses that such support is required. It is also important that that does not dilute the role and responsibilities of personal advisers. Young people speak very passionately in our Bright Spots surveys about the importance of the emotional and practical support that they provide. We must take care that that is not undermined.

Staying Close must mean what is close for the individual. This also extends to the legal duties to publish a local offer, which already exist, but really the question is whether we can achieve greater consistency and transparency for young people. For example, our young people in A National Voice, the national council for children in care, have been campaigning on the fact that almost two years after the Department for Education announced the increase for their setting up home grants, 10% of local authorities are still not applying it. All too often, these young people therefore experience a form of postcode lottery. Finally, our research has shown huge disparity in relation to the appreciation of levels of disability and long-term health conditions among care leavers. This needs to be a key area of focus.

[Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)]

Q Family group decision making is a well-evidenced practice, yet this Bill mandates it. Do we really need a Bill to mandate it, especially considering that a lot of children come into these situations when they are at risk of neglect from their carers? Cannot the virtue and the hope of this amendment, and the idea of family group decision making, be instructed through guidance? Does it need to be mandated through a Bill?

Anne Longfield: I think it does need to be mandated, because it is at the cornerstone of the different way of working. It is about intervening earlier. The majority of families in that situation are living with adversity and are not coping with adversity. The whole ambition behind this is to bring in not only parents, but families around them and others.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Darren Paffey]

Q My question is about qualified teacher status, and the Bill is obviously about either having or working towards that. Do you think it is a reasonable expectation that, whatever your expertise and subject knowledge, if you are teaching, you are trained to teach? Do you think that remains a reasonable expectation?

Julie McCulloch: I think it does in the vast majority of cases, but quite what working towards it looks like needs thinking about to ensure that it does not exacerbate existing crises. The only exception I might look at—I think there may be exceptions for this anyway—is at the very top end of secondary, and going into the college and vocational sphere, where there might be a slightly different set of skills needed in the people teaching those young people. But broadly, as a principle, I would agree.

[Darren Paffey]

Q My main question is about safeguarding. I know from experience that the good relationships between the different agencies, particularly schools and the local authorities, are forged locally, and therefore they depend on almost a bit of a lottery. Do you think that mandating will resolve that issue? Will that satisfy the leaders and the designated safeguarding leads who you speak to that they now have the position and the basis for a much stronger relationship through what is being mandated?

Paul Whiteman: We do. I would not go as far as suggesting that it is a lottery, but there are differences of relationship and of quality of relationship, so putting that on a statutory footing will help. Our one concern is that schools are often seen as the thing that will fill any void that occurs, or that will assume a greater responsibility. This is really about making sure that, through the conversations with those safeguarding teams, all the services that support children are there to help them, and that schools have a voice in that, rather than having to assume some of the responsibilities of the other agencies, as has happened more and more over time. We see it as a positive step, but there is a risk that somehow more and more responsibility is placed on schools, which would not be correct.

Julie McCulloch: I strongly agree with that. We have been doing a lot of work with our members recently about the additional responsibilities that they have been taking on, some of which they have been expected to take on and some of which they have felt that they had no choice but to take on, because the agencies that had normally delivered those services previously no longer exist or have incredibly long waiting lists. The relationships that might be improved through this measure are really important, but there is a huge capacity issue as well.

[Darren Paffey]

Q Are those expectations clear enough?

Julie McCulloch: I think they could probably be clearer.

[Ellie Chowns]

Q The Bill talks about breakfast clubs, but says nothing about free school meals more widely. Would you like to see an expansion of eligibility for free school meals?

Julie McCulloch: We would.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Darren Paffey]

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

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

[The Chair]

Order. I am afraid that under the programme motion we have to end exactly on time. I apologise. Thank you very much, everybody.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

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

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

Q The Bill seeks to move on from a fixation on structures and get back to outcomes and wellbeing. If I have understood your earlier comments, you welcome that. Do you think the Bill will sufficiently break that link between a child’s background and their future success? Do you believe that the measures will move us closer to that?

Dame Rachel de Souza: I am delighted with the measures for vulnerable children. I am hopeful for the measures on the schools side, but we need to see a bit more of a vision before I can answer. What is that system going to look like? My recommendation would be focusing on how, in local areas, we can build up and strengthen our local authorities so that they can be the champions of children, particularly vulnerable children, and convene the trusts and the schools so that everyone can work together to share their expertise. If we do that, we will have a great shot at it, and I think it could be really good.

[The Chair]

That brings us to the end of this session. I know there are other Members who want to get in; I will try to call you during the next session.

Examination of Witnesses

Sir Martyn Oliver, Lee Owston and Yvette Stanley gave evidence.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

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

[Darren Paffey]

Q Clauses 13 and 14 make provision for the financial oversight of care providers, and clause 9 looks at better regional arrangements for accommodation. What are your views on how effective that will be in improving provision for the care of children?

Katharine Sacks-Jones: As I said earlier, these are welcome measures. There is very little oversight of the providers at the moment, so a number of measures will improve that oversight. The missing piece is that if you do not tackle sufficiency, the power imbalance will still sit in the hands of the providers who provide the majority of homes for children. Greater oversight needs to come alongside improving sufficiency. One way to do that is to have a national strategy, which is missing at the moment. We think the Bill is an opportunity to introduce that.

[Darren Paffey]

Q To what extent does the regional co-operation deal with sufficiency?

Katharine Sacks-Jones: I think there are benefits to be had in regional commissioning. We are concerned to ensure that provision for children is not then condensed in certain areas of a region, which could mean children still being moved great distances. We would like to see a safeguard in the Bill around not moving children far from home unless it is in their interest, to go alongside the new regional co-operation arrangements.

Lynn Perry: I echo some of what Katharine said there. There has to be a focus on outcomes for children in care, and in particular for all providers to be able to demonstrate that they are taking the sort of steps that Katharine describes, which would lead to better outcomes for children. We need to recognise that with 80% of existing provision being provided privately, any sudden exit might also cause some challenges for children. So, the sufficiency piece is really important, but we need to rebuild what I reluctantly describe as the market, to provide care for children in a different way. That will take some time.

[The Chair]

I understand that this session should run until 3.15 pm.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

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

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

[Darren Paffey]

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

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

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

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

[Darren Paffey]

Q I think we all recognise that there are sometimes staffing issues in particular curriculum areas, but if something gets taken out of the curriculum, particularly at secondary but sometimes at primary, does that not risk equating to a freedom to shut off that opportunity for future generations of children? I know from having taught modern languages that when you lose those staff, you end up not replacing them, and you do not replace the subject on the curriculum. Is that not a risk?

Rebecca Leek: It is a risk. Basically, sometimes schools have to do things that are a bit of an emergency, or to handle a crisis situation. We do not have a factory line of ready-prepared teachers that are already available. We also have fluctuations in pupil numbers. Some years we have to put together years 2 and 3, sometimes we have to put together years 4 and 5, and then the next year we have to put together years 2, 3 and 4 because of the pupil numbers. So we just have to have a certain level to be able to work around. We do not want headteachers to always be worrying in the back of their heads, “Am I allowed to do this? Am I not allowed to do this?” There just needs to be a certain level of permissiveness.

What I say in my headteacher assembly at the end of year 6 is that I want to give all my children a travelcard to all zones in London. I do not just want to give them a zone 1 and 2 travelcard. We all believe that as school leaders, but sometimes we just have to focus on one thing, or we have to do some crisis management, so there has to be some agility within the system.

Jane Wilson: Can I comment? I think Ofsted has played an important role in that. As a serving inspector, part of the work I do on every inspection is to look at whether the curriculum is meeting the needs of the children; that where modifications have been made, they are appropriate; and that the curriculum the children are receiving is of equal quality to the national curriculum. So I think Ofsted, with the work it is doing, is already enabling that oversight of curriculum entitlement across the country.

[The Chair]

Thank you to the witnesses for the evidence you have given—sorry for the interruption in the middle of it, but we cannot help that.

Examination of Witness

David Thomas gave evidence.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fifth sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. As we return to our work on the Bill with clause 7, I want to say that it is still a bit disappointing that we have been through Second Reading, and here we are on the third day of Committee, and we still do not have the impact assessment for the Bill, which could potentially answer some of the questions that we will be raising today. I know the Ministers want to do the right thing in trying to get it out of the relevant committee and published, and I hope they can succeed in doing that pretty soon.

On clause 7, no reasonable person would argue that a young person leaving care does not require some support to live independently. Young people who have not been in care often require years of support to live independently, and they are less likely to be doing so away from home and will be in less difficult circumstances. Again, the Opposition support the Government’s objectives in this clause to provide staying close support, but we have some questions about how it is to work in practice.

First, the Bill gives discretion to the local authority on whether this support is in the best interests of a young person’s welfare. Surely the assumption should be that the support is offered, and it should be the exception to withhold it. One advantage in having the onus turned round would be that the local authority would have to record and explain decisions not to offer that kind of support. What sort of criteria are the local authorities supposed to use to make those choices, and will that be consistent across the country?

Secondly, there is also a question about the process for identifying the person who is to help the young person. The Department’s policy summary quite rightly talks about identifying a “trusted person”, which is obviously very important to this kind of young person. By definition, some young people in care have pretty good reasons not to trust adults around them, so how are local authorities to go about identifying such a “trusted person”? Thirdly, and this is a small point, will there be digital options to support young people? These days, that is clearly the most frequent method that young people use to get information, particularly sensitive information. It gives young people a choice of how they find their information, and there is potentially an opportunity for some good practice here in setting up a good way of communicating with their trusted person.

That leads me to a wider point. As we have gone through this Bill, and we will continue to make this point, there is a risk that local authorities, when confronted with these new duties, will obey the letter of the law, but will they really fulfil the spirit and good intent of Ministers in passing the Bill? Can the Minister be clear that this is not supposed to be just another signposting service? As young people leave care, they need personal advocates who can help them articulate their needs with other agencies, not a phone number or email address to contact. They do not really need more leaflets; they need a human being who can be trustworthy and provide practical help and advice. Signposting can quickly turn into a doom-loop dead end and no help. How does the Minister also envisage the involvement of local charities, some of whom will have had quite long-term links with the young person in care, and how will that be funded?

I will come on to this point on other amendment, but I ask here what the Minister makes of the call from the Our Wellbeing, Our Voice coalition for a national wellbeing measurement of care leavers. That would obviously support some of those points.

Does the Government plan to accept the recommendation of the Family Rights Group to offer lifelong links to all care leavers to help them have better relationships with those that they care about? Again, is there an opportunity here? Many constituency MPs will know people who have been in care and then become carers. There is this cycle—I know several people like this, and I will talk about one of them later on today. If we are getting into the business of continuing relationships after leaving care, which is a good thing, I wonder whether that can become something bigger—a lifelong connection, for those who want it, obviously, as a way of getting much-needed carers to stay in the system.

There is a risk that these measures are all very local authority-focused rather than focused on the needs of the young person. Amendment 23 would ensure that the voice of the child is heard and that we have the information that we need to allow for continuous improvement. It is very light touch. Keeping a record of the person’s wishes would help to protect against the loss of knowledge when personnel change. If things are written down, it is easier for a new person to come in and pick up and understand a bit about what that young person has said they want. In the longer term, it also provides a resource for learning and performance improvement. I talked in the previous session about kaizen and continuous improvement. The amendment is designed to support that, to improve continuity and to make sure that the voice of the young people for whom this very sensible form of care is to be provided is heard.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. I rise to support clause 8 stand part. [Interruption.] Sorry, my mistake.

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

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

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

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

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

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

The DFE’s explanatory notes for the Bill say that, although the housing and children’s services departments are encouraged in guidance—in part 7 of the Children Act 1989, I think—to work together to achieve the common aim of planning and providing appropriate accommodation and support for care leavers, that is not happening consistently in practice; the Minister alluded to that.

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

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

[Darren Paffey]

I appreciate your patience, Mr Stringer—this is not the first time I have stumbled over Committee procedure and no doubt it will not be the last. I welcome the Minister’s comments and the inclusion of clause 8, which I strongly support. I want to address the sentiment of new clause 40 as well.

The extension of the requirements around accommodation, extending the Children and Social Work Act 2017, requires councils to publish that local offer. That is crucial. Many of us have served in local government; it is at that local level that these crucial services, which can often make or break opportunities for care leavers, are delivered. The clause also takes steps towards making good on the Prime Minister’s commitment to guarantee care leavers a place to live.

We would all recognise, from the context of our own constituencies, that the barriers faced by care-experienced young people are numerous. The likelihood that good outcomes in life will be harder for them to achieve is simply a fact. It is absolutely right to bolster the local offer, as clause 8 seeks to do. The new provisions will further strengthen what many local authorities, including my own in Southampton, have begun to do over a number of years. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire suggested, there are measures of good practice under local councils that we now ought to be bringing into this standardisation of the offer.

In terms of a national offer, the new clause certainly has its merits and it is something good to aim for. I had the opportunity to speak to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who is responsible for children and families and whose remit this issue comes under. She has agreed to meet me to explore it further, but as my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards has already said, there is a cross-ministerial group. I really welcome the work that it is doing to take these measures forward, because building on the existing measures, which strengthen that national focus, is crucial. It says to young people with care experience that they matter.

I have worked very closely with young people in care over the years, and I know that too many of them feel let down by the systems there to protect them. This is about showing that the Government get what it is like for them, are focused on acting for their good and doing so from the very top. Having that national focus goes a long way towards making those people’s journey to adulthood stronger and as smooth as possible and towards ensuring that they are fully supported to thrive.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Ninth sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

Amendment 94 in my name would require the Secretary of State to take account of the availability of qualified teachers in each subject and the desirability of specific sectoral expertise when making regulations under clause 40. We agree that, ideally, we want every child taught by a qualified teacher, but we have to recognise that in the world we are living in, and given the shortages, there will be times when the best thing for the school, children and other staff is to see experts coming in who do not have a teacher qualification. I hope that Ministers will support this modest amendment in order to prevent unintended consequences.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Edward. I rise to support clause 40 and to argue that the amendments under discussion are unnecessary. I very much welcome this measure. It underpins the ambition that the Government have to ensure that every child gets the best quality of education. Although this will not necessarily be a shared view, the top quality of education comes not through obsessing about structures, but about getting the right people in place. This is simply a common-sense proposal to ensure that, across the board, no matter the structure of the school, parents can be reassured, and as children set foot in that school they can be reassured, that they are getting the best quality education.

[Patrick Spencer]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Darren Paffey]

I will make some progress and then will be happy to give way.

I ask Opposition Members to reflect on the logical fallacy of applying this laissez-faire approach in a way that they probably would not do—or at least I hope they would not do—for other professions. I think it is uncontroversial to ask for assurance that, when I take my car in for repair, I am not just giving it over to someone who is enthusiastic about car repairs, but is actually qualified. The stakes of that going wrong are high; someone who does not know how to fix brakes will cause significant risk. When I visit the GP, I want reassurance that I have not just got someone who has done health tech, had a great 20-year-long career in that, and has decided to swap over and offer their expertise there. I want someone who is absolutely qualified in that practice.

I reiterate what my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North said: no one doubts the quality of subject experts. No one doubts that those with significant top-quality experience can come in and be absolutely inspirational, but by saying that that is enough, Opposition Members suggest that qualified teacher status adds no value to that subject expertise. What about the skills in effective student development, pedagogy, collaboration, class management, assessment, feedback and differentiation? Those are not things that come naturally with subject expertise.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Darren Paffey]

Who is diving in first? I will give way.

[Patrick Spencer]

If the hon. Member takes a moment later today to listen to the Secretary of State’s interview on “The News Agents” podcast, Emily Maitlis said, “You can have a terrible teacher with qualified status, but a fantastic teacher who is not qualified…can’t you?” The Secretary of State’s response was, “Absolutely”. Does the hon. Member agree with her?

[Darren Paffey]

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

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

[Darren Paffey]

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

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

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

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

[Damian Hinds]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen. I enjoyed his speech and I think he made several very good points, a number of which the Opposition would agree with. We certainly agree with the importance of the foundation of qualified teacher status, and a lot of work rightly went into reforming the core content and framework of initial teacher training, as well as the early career framework. Those are incredibly important foundations for a successful career in teaching.

With the present Government’s plan to recruit just 6,500 teachers over the next five years, which is a material slow-down compared with the Parliament just ended, it should be more straightforward to hit those recruitment targets, but I do not think this discussion is really about the numbers that we can recruit into the teaching profession. It is about getting the right people, which the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen also said. It is not about obsessing over having the structures but getting the right people, and this is about getting the right people in front of children in school settings. By the way, presuming we are not just talking about academics, that also applies to sport, music and art.

[Damian Hinds]

I think this is where the whole House comes together. The best of all worlds is to have someone who is both a subject specialist, with their own excellent academic record, and QTS, and who is also a really inspirational practitioner. Of course, those three things come together on many occasions, but sometimes there are choices that have to be made.

[Darren Paffey]

Very briefly, does the right hon. Gentleman not agree therefore that the right people we are talking about are not just those who quite rightly often have a stellar career in another area of subject expertise? Would they not be right for children and for schools if they wanted not only to bring that expertise but to do everything they can to be best prepared to direct the curriculum, outcome and chances of those children by being qualified?

[Damian Hinds]

Of course, and for many people that is the right thing to do. There are mid-career and later-career programmes for coming into teaching and I want people to do those more and more. Sometimes, however, people come from abroad, and it could be from a country with which we do not necessarily have mutual recognition, or they might come from the independent sector, so they might have taught for many years and be an outstanding practitioner. The hon. Gentleman also said if he went to the mechanic, he would not want someone who is just fascinated by engines, and I understand that entirely. However, if someone wanted to learn football, and they had the opportunity to learn from a professional footballer, although not as the only PE teacher—

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 4th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Damian Hinds]

I do not think those things are in conflict. My point was that the national curriculum, as it was set up, is quite loose. It did not have to be, it does not have to be now and it does not have to be in five or 10 years. It can be written exactly as Ministers at the time wish to write it. Although the hon. Lady says we are not debating whether to make the national curriculum more rigid, actually we might be—we do not know. I will come to that in a moment.

I was saying—you will be pleased to know, Sir Christopher, that I do want to accelerate—that the flexibility can be an instrument for school improvement, either for entire year groups, for the entire school or, indeed, on a longer basis, for a nurture group or a group or individual who, for whatever reason, needs additional support. It also means that schools might specialise somewhat, and that they might innovate without having, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston rightly said, to overthink about whether they are complying exactly with this or that specification.

At a time when we are rightly concerned about attendance numbers, it has been suggested to me that making adherence to the national curriculum more specified, and possibly the curriculum itself being made more rigid, could be injurious to school attendance or inclusion in mainstream schooling if it makes more children feel rejected, uncomfortable or unhappy at school and so seek education either at home or in alternative settings.

The crucial point is that, whether schools have innovated with an academy trust curriculum, decided to deviate to support individual groups for a period of time, or specialised somewhat, they will all be judged by Ofsted on the simple requirement of having a broad and balanced curriculum. For most schools the easiest way to comply with having a broad and balanced curriculum is to follow the national curriculum—but there can be other ways. Again, like my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, I am left wondering what the problem the Government are trying to solve is.

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

We keep coming back to “What is the problem?” That is the wrong question to ask. We are partly here to solve problems, but we are also here to reach further and be more ambitious, so the right hon. Gentleman should be asking, “What is the objective we are aiming for?” That would be a far more engaging question for him to ask.

[Damian Hinds]

If the hon. Gentleman is going to pose a great rhetorical question like that, he should have an answer ready. What is it? What is this thing that we are reaching for? I do not think any of us in this room is well qualified or well placed to say, “Where can we take this school?” The person best placed to decide that is the school leader. We would like to give some leeway and flexibility, within a system of all sorts of measurements, constraints and so on, for people to be able to innovate and do what is right for children.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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 ---

[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.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and absolutely agree on the importance of this measure and the difference it will make to children and young people as they move into the sometimes challenging transition to adulthood, having experienced care and on leaving care.

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

The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question would, therefore, be subject to those parameters, but I imagine that in most cases it would apply to young people leaving the criminal justice system. He is right to raise that as a concern. Indeed, the purpose of the measure is to disapply the intentional homelessness test for care leavers who are within that scope. Care leavers who have left the youth justice system would quite rightly be included, given that they will experience similar challenges to other care leavers in establishing themselves in a secure adult life.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Darren Paffey Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Catherine Atkinson]

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

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

[Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)]

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

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

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

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

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

[Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)]

I want to start by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen that leadership and action are needed. Indeed, leadership and action were needed three years ago in February 2022 when the IICSA report came out. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for her knowledgeable insights and her forensic examination of the Bill, the recommendations and the report. I will spend a moment establishing for the record what exactly those 20 recommendations are asking for, which we as a Government have committed to implementing in full—albeit three years too late for some victims.

Let me list the headings of the report. The first is on a mandatory aggravating factor for CSE offences. The second is on statutory guidance on preventing CSE. The third is on data collection and analysis, and establishing a national database. The fourth is about strengthening the criminal justice response. The fifth is about training for professionals and requiring mandatory training for all professionals working with children, including social workers, police and healthcare staff, to help them recognise the signs of exploitation and act accordingly. The sixth is about a national framework for support, and developing a national framework for services to ensure that appropriate support is available for victims. The seventh is about supporting victims and improving the availability and accessibility of specialised support services for victims. The eighth concerns tailored responses to CSE victims, ensuring authorities provide a tailored response to the specific needs of children who are victims. The ninth is about launching a national public awareness campaign to raise awareness of CSE, educating the public and reducing the stigma that surrounds the victims. The 10th is to strengthen safeguarding in schools and introduce better protocols. The 11th is about tackling perpetrators of CSE, strengthening law enforcement’s abilities to target them. The 12th is for a Government review of safeguarding systems, conducting a review of the national safeguarding system to ensure current measures are sufficiently robust to address child sexual exploitation and victims. The 13th is to ensure adequate local authority resources. The 14th concerns independence for local safeguarding boards. The 15th recommends a review of the placement of settings for vulnerable children. The 16th calls for a stronger legal framework for CSE. The 17th is about increasing the use of risk assessment tools. The 18th is about rehabilitation and reintegration services. The 19th is on specialised support for parents and families and the 20th on a regular review of local authority practices. Each one of those 20 recommendations has the victims at its heart.