Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Debate between Helen Hayes and Damian Hinds(3 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds
My right hon. Friend and near constituency neighbour makes a very important point, and I am sure she is running a very effective campaign. We look to the Government to come forward with what we know will be a large and broad special educational needs reform package. We do not yet know what will be in it or what the implications will be. Of course, we want all children to be wherever is right for them. For some children, that means being educated in a mainstream setting where they can benefit from that. However, we also know that for some children, it is right to be in special school. Having the full range of provision is therefore incredibly important.
There is a great deal in this Bill that I could speak about, and which we did speak about in Committee. However, in pursuit of brevity—as I know you would wish, Madam Deputy Speaker—I am going to limit myself today to talking about two aspects: one thing that is in the Bill, and another that is conspicuous by its absence. The thing that is in the Bill is a peculiar thing to raise on the Floor of the House of Commons, because it is something with which I have not yet heard anybody disagree, and on which there is no amendment to speak to —although, to remain orderly, Madam Deputy Speaker, I can speak with reference to Government amendment 114, which is right next to it in the legislation.
I speak neither in favour nor against the principle of what I am about to cover, but raise it for what is, I think, an important reason. In this House, it is sometimes precisely with measures on which there is no disagreement that the greatest dangers lie, because this House, with its oppositional layout, thrives on people finding holes in what is being proposed and objecting to them; when everybody is saying the same kind of thing, there is a real danger that things will get through without the proper attention.
I have not yet said what I am referring to, have I? I am referring to the provisions on unique identifiers. A couple of speakers have already mentioned the importance of these measures. The hon. Member for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern) was talking about a number of almost invariably serious case reviews identifying the problems that have occurred. A lot of that centres around the lack of proper data sharing, where different agencies both knew the same child, but did not join together what they knew about that child in order to be able to act in their best interest. Having what is, in the systems world, called an “index term”—a terrible way to refer to a child—or a unique identifier for every child, so that everybody knows when they are talking about the same child, is very important. The Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) spoke about the potential for this area to be genuinely transformational— I think that was the phrase she used. All of that is true.
Clause 4 allows for the creation of a single unique identifier for children and introduces new duties around data sharing. Here is my worry: sometimes when we legislate, something passes through without too much debate, and then, two or three years later, all sorts of other things start happening, and when we query why they are happening, people say, “Well, you lot voted for this. You passed a law about it. Perhaps these are some of the consequences.” I think something along those lines might have happened with GDPR, for example, and some of the things that we now see coming through on rules around children’s social media use and ages.
The creation of the single unique identifier is a massive change in the way we keep records on people in this country. With the potential to join up different databases, there are great positive implications for things like child safety, but there are other implications around privacy, data security and so on. It has been suggested that the NHS number would be the unique identifier used for each child, which, at first glance, seems an obvious and sensible thing to do. As a former Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know that in the past, various projects have proposed using the national insurance number as a unique identifier for adults, which, at the time, also seemed like a sensible and clever thing to do. However, when it was prodded further, it turned out that the national insurance number database is not perfect, and I am afraid the NHS number database may not be, either—it just was not designed for this kind of purpose.
We are obviously not going to have a big debate on this issue today, although they may do in the other place when they talk about the Bill. However, over time, I think we will have to unpack what this whole new system may imply. For a start, is it talking about using the existing NHS database and the index term—the unique identifier for individuals—or is it talking about taking those numbers and putting them into a new database or system, which would have significant cost and time implications? If it is using the current NHS database, we need to think about the implications.
There has been a different debate going on about AI and the use of large amounts of data for academic research. What would be the implications of having this huge database with every child in the country potentially linked to all sorts of other databases, with details about them, for that kind of research? How secure would the system be? We can probably safely say that the system would not give the same number to two different children, but I am not 100% certain that we could say with total confidence that the same one child could not, at different times in their life, have different numbers, particularly with immigration and re-immigration, change in family structures and so on. What would that mean for the system?
More broadly, though, once we had this unique identifier and a national database of this sort, we could use it for quite a few things other than child protection. Some of those things might be considered by many of us in this House to be pro-social things that are worth pursuing. We have been having debates about age verification and the use of electronic devices and social media, for example; such a database would probably be the most reliable identity system for under-18s.
What about after age 18? If children have grown up with this database and with a number and identifier attached to them, that would not disappear just because they pass the age of majority. In theory, they could carry on having a linked database that potentially links up child protection sources, NHS sources, police national computer and so on—who knows what else could be joined up. We might then find that we have a system of national identity cards without having sought that in the first place.
Helen Hayes
The right hon. Gentleman is raising a number of technical considerations about the implementation of a project that is no doubt very ambitious. But does he not hear the cries from parents of children with SEND who are so weary of having to tell their story again and again to different parts of the system that are supposed to help them, and are currently being hampered in those efforts by exactly this want for information about a child being held in a single place? Does he not think that, ambitious though this project is, and important though the technical considerations are, it is worth delivering, and that it is worth giving parents the confidence that we in this House will scrutinise it and do that job? There are big gains to be had from pursuing this course of action.
Damian Hinds
I think the hon. Lady was here for the first two or three minutes of my speech—that is broadly what I said. In fact, I quoted her talking about the transformational potential of this measure and its importance. I do not want to go through it all again, but I said that when we all agree on something, there is sometimes a danger of unintended consequences. I then said that we may not talk about all this today—we do not have to do so today—but I think the Government will probably have to come back multiple times for Parliament to be able to consider all the much wider potential implications of creating such a database. I think, not for the first time in our in our lives, we are not a million miles away from one another.
The other thing that I want to talk about, in a less consensual tone, is what is glaring in its absence from the Bill: new clause 36 on mobile phones and social media, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott). There are four parts to it: the first two state that the chief medical officer should be commissioned to issue a report, and the Government will conduct research on the effects of social media on children and young people. That was in the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which we discussed a couple of Fridays ago.
The third thing was in the wider package, as colleagues will remember, but the Government did not agree to it: a phone ban during the school day. That is point of contention, although I know that many hon. Members across the House, including in the Labour party, agree on it. There are limits to the approach. An argument that is always made when asking, “Why not ban mobile phones at school?” is, “What about out of school?” That is a good question, but it is not a reason not to do the first part. I readily admit that most online harm happens outside school. We know from research, including the recent study from the University of Birmingham, that a school ban does not necessarily reduce the total amount of time that young people spend online—it just displaces some of it. That does not necessarily improve things such as sleep, which is a big worry for teenagers, nor does it address wider issues of attention span, eyesight and so on.
Rules are still important, for the sake of both children and schools, but three things in recent years have changed the context for behaviour in schools. The first is a set of things that happened around covid—a sort of attitude shift that seems to have happened to a large extent throughout society. The other two things are vapes and phones. Of course, there is a universal ban on vapes at school. That does not mean that they never get through, but pupils are not allowed to vape in any state secondary school in this country. Phones are the other thing. We know—I say that because it applies to us as well—that if we have a phone in our pocket, even if we are not looking at the screen in front of us, it is still something of a distraction, because it could buzz at any time. In fact, we might be wondering if it will buzz when someone replies or comments on a post or whatever it might be.
The school day in its entirety should be devoted to school. That means not just lessons and learning things, although that is the primary aim, but being a child or young person, being with friends and growing up without those distractions.
Register of Children not in School
Debate between Helen Hayes and Damian Hinds(1 year, 1 month ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as ever. I was coming to that point, but as he has brought it forward I will say now that the guidance already encourages collaboration between home educators. As he says, in coming together often we can achieve more, and it is possible in principle that that could be enhanced further through the provisions on additional support. He makes a good point.
The measures would have ensured consistency of approach across local authorities through regulations and new statutory guidance, and it remains our intention to work closely with home educators, local authorities and other key stakeholders prior to the introduction of any new statutory system to ensure that it is implemented in a way that works both for home-educating parents and for local authorities. In the meantime, the Government continue to work with local authorities to improve their existing non-statutory registers and to support local authorities to ensure that all children in their area receive a suitable education.
The Department’s consultation on revised guidance on elective home education for local authorities and parents closed on 18 January. We received more than 4,000 responses, which are being analysed. We will of course publish our consultation response along with the revised guidance in the coming months. The Department has worked closely with stakeholders, including home educators, to develop that guidance, which aims to help parents and local authorities better understand what they are required to do and what should be done to ensure that all children receive a suitable education. That includes improving aspects of the guidance to make clearer the processes for when preliminary notices and school attendance orders should be issued, encouraging a more collaborative approach between local authorities and home-educating parents, and focusing more on available support for home-educating families.
Through our termly local authority data collection on elective home education and on children missing education, we are also increasing the accuracy of all local authority non-statutory registers and improving local authority and departmental understanding of children not in school. However, as I have already set out, true data accuracy will be gained only with mandatory registers, which would specify the data to be recorded. The accompanying duty on parents to inform local authorities when they are home educating and the duty on out-of-school education providers to provide information on request are necessary to ensure that we identify all eligible children. We have recently conducted a call for evidence on improving support for children not receiving any education—some of the most vulnerable children in our society—and held webinars for local authorities on meeting their duties to identify those children, and we continue to collect data on children missing education to increase transparency and identify where further support is needed.
I thank all colleagues who have taken part in the debate for bringing to the House their expertise, constituency reflections and experiences. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley, who led the way. Since she came to Parliament, she has devoted her sharp mind and strong advocacy to a number of causes, but education has always been extremely high on her list. She explained clearly what motivated her to support this cause and introduce her private Member’s Bill. She paid warm tribute to parents who make great sacrifices and go to great lengths to home educate their children, and she put it pithily when she said “not every child is your child”—other children are in completely different circumstances. That in no way undermines what any parent is doing, and it does not conflate any two sets of circumstances. That point came up in a number of Members’ contributions. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) made that case, as did his colleague, the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell). The hon. Member for Strangford also spoke about the importance of support; in responding to his intervention, I covered some of his points.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) spoke about a number of issues, including looked-after children and children in care. Since his time as Children’s Minister, he has maintained a close interest in that issue and has been very active on it. He also spoke about our largely or partly unsung success—the great strides we have made in education in this country since 2010. I pay tribute to his contribution to that through the great work he did at the Department for Education.
Our guiding philosophy since 2010 has been that we must drive up standards while closing the attainment gap. Great strides have been made in both areas, as can be seen in the international comparisons. Between 1997 and 2010, although results were ostensibly going up domestically, in fact England was coming down the international comparison tables. Since 2010, that has reversed, and crucially—as I say, this has been at the heart of our philosophy—that has been accompanied by other things we have been doing, such as the pupil premium. Great progress was made in narrowing the gap, but of course covid put a dent in education overall—that is true right across the world—and produced new challenges with the attainment gap. The attainment gap is also in part related to differential rates of attendance among different groups in the school community. That is just one of the reasons why we have a laser-like focus on attendance as we ensure we continue to raise standards in school.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham raised some of the wider factors and spoke about the different settings in the system and the challenges and issues. Although those are not the subject of today’s debate—I will not try your patience by going there, Sir Christopher—those are very important points.
As always, my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye brought to bear her experience in East Sussex and Hastings and Rye, and the hard work she does for her community. She spoke about the partial link between what we are talking about today and what happened during the pandemic. She also talked about SEND provision and, like my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, some of the wider factors. The crucial point my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye made was that having a register would enable us to understand those things better, and enable local authorities to tailor support and ensure they are responding well to the circumstances of different families. I thank her for that contribution.
The hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who spoke for the Opposition, talked about persistent absence, which, as I just said, is a significant issue that we are grappling with. She did not mention the international nature of the increase in absence from school since the pandemic. She also did not mention the progress made since 2010, before the pandemic, including the tightening of the definition of persistent absence in order to raise the bar, which possibly happened shortly before my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham was in the Department for Education.
It is true that since covid there has been a renewed challenge in multiple countries. I am pleased to say that progress is being made. Absence overall for the 2023-24 autumn term was 6.8%, compared with 7.5% the previous year. The trend is moving in the right direction, but we need it to go further. I ask the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood not to conflate entirely different subjects. By definition, home-educated children cannot be persistently absent from school, because they are not on the school roll. We went through that at the Opposition day debate, which put completely different things together in one composite motion. That does not help provide the clarity we need on the subject, and how such debates play out with the public.
Damian Hinds
If the hon. Lady is able to correct me on that point, I will be delighted to hear from her.
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. “Conflate” is the wrong word, because these issues are linked. For many parents, the causes of persistent absence, which we have talked about—poor mental health, poor SEND support, off-rolling and pressures on families—result in their decision to home educate. Theirs could be the home-educated children about which local authorities know nothing. The issues are linked and we need a comprehensive strategy, including a register of children not in school. That is our position.
Damian Hinds
I suppose I am grateful to the hon. Lady for saying that. If she believes that having a register of children not in school will do something about persistent absence, I am afraid she may have higher expectations than will be delivered.
Helen Hayes
The register would enable intervention on the quality of the education being received by children at home. Knowing who those children are enables local authorities to understand how they are being educated and to make a determination about the quality of that education. That can help local authorities to support some families to return their children to school, where the choice to home educate was not a positive choice to do that and do it well, but was made due to the unacceptable pressure that those families have been under.
Damian Hinds
These are both very important subjects, and there is some linkage at some level, but I do not think that what the hon. Lady just said is a sequitur. We are bearing down on persistent absence, with a support-first approach, to ensure that children get the benefit of being in school as many days as possible. No child can be in school every day throughout their school years—every child will be ill at some point—but there is a huge benefit to being at school. We recognise, of course, that some children are in more difficult circumstances than others. The question of the register of children not in school is a separate matter, though both are important.
I want to return to a couple of things that the hon. Lady mentioned on the Opposition’s proposed, or supposed, strategy on dealing with attendance. While in principle I do not disagree with a number of those things, that is largely because they sound very like Government policy. I do, however, disagree with some of the detail and supposed changes. For example, if we are trying to improve attendance at school, I think it is wrong to focus a breakfast club policy specifically on primary school, because we know that absence is more acute in secondary school. If we target a breakfast club programme to areas where it is needed most, we can have most impact on absence.
On mental health, I believe we might have heard a new spending commitment from the hon. Lady this morning. Previously, when the Opposition have talked about mental health counsellors, it has generally been in respect of secondary schools. I was not sure if she was saying that this was to be in every one of 22,000 schools.
Helen Hayes
I am very happy to clarify our position, which is well publicised. A mental health professional will be based in every secondary school in the country, with mental health support available to every primary school in the country. Perhaps the Minister might say what he is doing in the same area to improve the mental health of our children and young people.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for enlightening me on that subject. She should know that we are investing in creating a network of mental health support teams throughout the country. It is a gradual deployment, as these things always must be, but importantly it includes primary schools as well as secondary schools. Finally, on what the hon. Lady said about Ofsted, I will just say that Ofsted already quite rightly looks at absence.
I want to reiterate that any form of registration of children not in school would not fundamentally alter the status quo when it comes to the parental right to choose home education. Home education is a right, and we are not seeking to change that right. It forms a core part of the English education system, which allows parents choice in how to educate their child. I pay tribute once again to all those parents who make significant sacrifices to provide a suitable education for their child.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley for bringing this topic to the House today. My colleagues in the Department for Education and I warmly welcome her Bill on the same subject. We look forward to its Second Reading on Friday 15 March, and to working closely with her as she takes it through the House.
Free School Meals: Children with SEND
Debate between Helen Hayes and Damian Hinds(1 year, 3 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Damian Hinds
Obviously the quality of school food is critical, and regulations cover not only free school meals, in the sense of lunches, but all food that is available during the school day—for example, in breakfast clubs that schools provide and even in tuck shops. I may get inspiration, but I think the standards cover up to 6 pm in the evening for things going on during the school day.
When one talks about compliance with regulations, one has to think differently about what is done at a system level and for individual children. Candidly, I do not think that it is realistic to say that you could have a regulatory agency that was looking at every individual case of individual children and their requirements in that particular school, but it is important that we have those standards. If the hon. Lady would like, I would be very happy, of course, to follow up with her separately.
That, in fact, brings me on to the point that I have in front of me, which is that, where parents do have specific concerns that a school’s legal obligations regarding their child are not being met, those should be raised with the school in the first instance, and subsequently, as necessary, with the academy trust or local authority.
Helen Hayes
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I am simply making the point that the absence of any reference in the guidance to the legislation results in a situation of conflict—
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Helen Hayes and Damian Hinds(6 years, 2 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds
There are differences between Cheshire and London, including in the composition of the population. For example, the proportion of children on free school meals is materially higher in London than in Cheshire, and there are some cost considerations, but I will of course, as ever, be more than happy to meet my hon. Friend.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Helen Hayes and Damian Hinds(8 years, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Damian Hinds
There are multiple features of universal credit that make that so much more likely. The critical thing is to remove the barriers that create differences between being out of work and being in work. Having the rent paid directly to the individual is one thing; there is also the additional support that people get from the work coach in the jobcentre; then there is the fact that people know how much they will retain for every extra hour worked and extra pound earned.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
Damian Hinds
We are very mindful of our duties under section 149 of the Equality Act 2010, and we do indeed carry out the equality impact assessments that the hon. Lady mentions. She and I have had a chance to talk about the specific jobcentre. What we are doing is making sure that we have a good spread of jobcentres across the country that are accessible to the people who need to use them, but also utilising space better.