Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 6th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Neil O'Brien]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will begin by asking a question up front, so that the Minister has time to confer with officials if she needs to in order to reply.

We learned during the debate on clause 50 that, as well as existing schools, local authorities will be able to go to the schools adjudicator regarding school openings. Will a local authority be able to object to the published admissions number of a school in another local authority, or is it limited to schools within its own area? Possible answers are: yes, they will be able to object about another authority; no, they will not be able to; or, the Government have not decided yet. As drafted, the Bill does not tell us what the Government’s intent is.

I will now speak to our amendment 85 and clause 51. Local authorities can already establish local authority schools if there is really no one who wants to start a new school, although, as the Government’s notes to the Bill rightly say, the current legal framework for opening new schools is tilted heavily towards all new schools—mainstream, special, and so on—being academies. As we have discussed, clause 44 repeals the requirement to turn failing local authority schools into academies; clause 51 is effectively the other half of that shift away from academisation. It ends the rule that new schools must be academies and allows local authorities to choose to set up new local authority-run schools instead. Both changes will reduce the flow of new schools into the best performing trusts. For that reason, we think it is a mistake.

Ministers keep saying that they want greater consistency —that seems to be one of the guiding principles of the Bill—but in the long term the combination of clause 51 and clause 44 will leave us with two types of school. That will sustain the confusion that we talked about in previous debates, where the local authority is simultaneously the regulator and a provider in the market it is regulating. The schools system is currently a halfway house: more than 80% of secondary schools are now academies, but less than half of primaries are, so just over half of all state schools are academies, and most academies are now in a trust.

I understand why Ministers have moved to find a legislative slot, and I know that anti-academies campaigners and people who do not like academies will welcome the clause. My question is where this is taking us in terms of a structure for the system as a whole. The Minister will say, “We want the flexibility to set up local authority schools,” but the combination of clauses 44 and 51 means that, in the long term, we will continue to have two types of school, rather than continue the organic move of recent years toward a system that is clearly based on academies and trusts, and trusts as the drivers of overall performance. That became apparent during the Government’s announcement the other day of their consultation on the new intervention regime. Ministers are now talking about RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—as one of the drivers of school improvement, leading to lots of questions about where the balance is between RISE and trusts, and what happens where the advice of a RISE team contradicts a trust’s views about what should be done in the case of a school with problems.

We have rehearsed a lot of these issues before, but I am keen to get an answer from the Minister about whether, in the case of new school openings in a different local authority, another local authority would be able to send the question of that school’s PAN to the schools adjudicator under clause 50. I am also keen to get the Minister’s sense of the finality of the system. Are Ministers happy for us to have just local authority schools and academies in the long term, and do not think that that is a problem they need to address? Do they not have a vision for the final situation, or do they have some other vision that the Minister wants to set out?

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome clause 51 and its counterpart, not least because we desperately need new special schools. The previous Government approved fewer than half of the 85 applications from councils to open SEND free schools in 2022. This is a real part of unblocking that, so we agree with the Government. We tabled amendment 48 because a potential loophole is created in the now well-established rules on faith-based selection. Those rules apply to academies and will continue to do so, but under clause 51 not all new schools will be academies. The amendment would bring all new schools into line with the current established principles of faith-based selection for academies. It is a very simple amendment. I think the error was made inadvertently during drafting, and hopefully the Government will support it.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ian Sollom]

I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time.

I am moving new clause 3 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). The Children and Families Act 2014 sets out timeframes for local authorities to decide whether to do an education, health and care plan needs assessment, and then for the resulting education, health and care plan to be issued. Local authorities have six weeks from application to decide whether to carry out an EHCNA, and a total of 20 weeks from application to issue an EHCP. Across England in 2023, however, only 50.3% of EHCPs were issued within that statutory 20-week deadline. Some places perform much worse than that—in Essex, only 0.9% were issued within the 20-week deadline.

New clause 3 is about reporting that. Transparency is a first key step in accountability, so publishing local authorities’ performance in relation to those statutory deadlines is the aim of the amendment as that first step. It is essentially a free change because local authorities already have the information gathered, so there should not be any additional resources needed. It could in fact help, because it would cut down on freedom of information requests, for example, which are a burden on councils. It will also cut down on the level of communication required with concerned parents constantly contacting to ask when their child is going to receive their EHCP.

Also included within new clause 3, local authorities will have the opportunity to explain any reasons and lay out their plans for improving performance. That kind of transparency helps direct resources well, and I think it is a good, sensible step,

[Catherine McKinnell]

I totally agree it is vital there is publicly available data regarding local authority performance on EHCPs. That is why we publish annual data on each local authority’s timeliness in meeting their 20-week deadline. Local authorities identified as having issues with EHCP timeliness are subject to additional monitoring by the Department for Education, which works with the specific local authority. Where there are concerns about the local authority’s capacity to make the required improvements, we have secured specialist special educational needs and disabilities adviser support to help identify barriers to EHCP timeliness and put in place practical plans for recovery.

Furthermore, when Ofsted and Care Quality Commission area SEND inspections indicate there are significant concerns with local authority performance, the Department intervenes directly. That might mean issuing an improvement notice or statutory direction or appointing a commissioner, deployment of which is considered on a case-by-case basis.

We are clear that the SEND system requires reform. We are considering options to drive improvements, including on the timeliness of support and local authority performance. We do not believe increasing the amount of published data and reporting on EHCP timeliness alone would lead to meaningful improvements in performance. We are working closely with experts on reforms. We recently appointed a strategic adviser for SEND who will play a key role in convening and engaging with the sector, including leaders, practitioners, children and families, as we consider the next steps for future reform of SEND.

In response to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, I absolutely respect the intentions of his amendment and the desire to see much greater timeliness and support for children with SEND and their families. We are working incredibly hard—this is a priority within the Department for Education—to get much better outcomes. We do not believe that this amendment will achieve the desired outcome, although we share the intention behind the amendment.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for the way in which he presented this clause. We share the ambition for children with special educational needs and disabilities to get much better service, from their local authority and on their education journey. We recognise there are significant challenges for those who seek to deliver that being able to do so, which is why we are looking at reform in a whole-system way. We are looking to drive mainstream inclusion within our school system and to reduce the waiting times for assessments, which we know is led by the Department of Health and Social Care. This is a cross-departmental effort involving the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Work and Pensions, and clearly the Department for Education has a key role in achieving a much better outcome for children with special educational needs. We absolutely take away the intentions of this amendment, but would appreciate it not being pressed to a vote as part of the Bill. The conversation about special educational needs and improving the outcomes for children will, however, without doubt continue.

[Ian Sollom]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn. 

Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Vicky Foxcroft.)