Universities: Funding and Employment

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd April 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Vickers. I thank the hon. Member for Bradford for securing the debate and raising this important issue—

[Mohammad Yasin]

Bedford.

[Ian Sollom]

I am sorry. I should know; I was just about to say that the hon. Member for Bedford (Mohammad Yasin) is a near neighbour of mine.

Although I am here as the Lib Dem spokesperson for higher education, the proximity of St Neots to Bedford gives me a particular constituency interest in the concerns that the hon. Member raised about the challenges facing the University of Bedfordshire, which, as we have heard from hon. Members across the Chamber, are echoed around the country. It is clear that many universities are feeling huge financial pressure, and it is something we are all concerned about. Universities’ financial challenges are not just numbers on a spreadsheet; they affect real people, their livelihoods and their communities, as well as the quality of education and research.

I am not as young as I used to be, so I hope it is valid for me to say that I cannot remember a time when universities faced such financial pressures. We desperately need the situation to change. The income that English universities receive for teaching UK students has declined in real terms almost every year since 2015-16, and is now approaching the lowest level since 1997. There are major budget shortfalls due to rising energy costs and, more recently, the increase in national insurance contributions, as well as a lack of investment and support after years of neglect from the last Conservative Government. That is coupled with a decline in international student numbers because of visa restrictions, as point that many hon. Members made well. We are in a global competition in that regard, and it is unsurprising that our institutions have ended up in such a fragile financial position.

Figures released in November by the Office for Students revealed that 40% of education providers were already forecasting deficits, but I believe that new data suggests that, without mitigating action from the Government, up to 72% of providers could be in deficit by the 2025-26 academic year. It is unsurprising that many institutions are being forced to make difficult decisions on staffing across the sector, in all jobs—support workers as well as academic staff. That is deeply worrying, and will negatively impact the sector and the country more widely.

Universities play a crucial role in our country by providing a high-quality education to many, through research and development and, crucially, by boosting regional economies. Many universities are the largest employer in their area, and the knock-on economic benefits of students living in those areas cannot be over-emphasised. The bottom line is that higher education is an investment in our future on many levels.

When it comes to research and development activities, our universities are world leading and at the forefront of discoveries and innovations that boost growth and improve everyday life. The hon. Members for Colchester (Pam Cox) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell) mentioned that for every £1 invested in university research and innovation, the UK gets £14 back. I had a slightly more—dare I say it?—conservative figure, £10, but the order of magnitude is clear, and it is reassuring that different research reinforces similar numbers.

On top of that, universities are vital in supporting start-up companies across the country. Universities UK recently launched its “Unis start up the UK” campaign. It says that partnering with start-ups boosts economic growth by creating jobs and attracting investment, and sees universities equipping entrepreneurs with the right skills through incubator hubs. Analysis by the Higher Education Statistics Agency shows that between 2014-15 and 2022-23, there was a 70% increase in the number of start-ups founded in UK universities, and that in 2022-23, around 64,000 people were employed by those start-ups—up 170% from 2014-15. HESA predicts that, with the right support, 27,000 new start-ups, with a predicted turnover of around £10.8 billion, could be established by students and staff at UK universities by 2028.

Despite the positive contributions that universities make to social and economic life, in far too many cases their finances are simply unsustainable. In the past year, around three quarters of universities have implemented significant savings programmes, including, sadly, redundancies, course closures, reductions in module options, and the consolidation of professional services and student support.

Thriving universities are essential to a thriving UK, delivering stronger growth, better public services and improved individual life chances. If the Government are serious about their growth mission, they have to work with the higher education sector to stabilise funding, protect fair pay and jobs, and ensure long-term sustainability. We have been calling on them to implement a full-scale review of higher education finance. We believe there are many more things that could be done to support universities that do not involve raising tuition fees further, such as recognising the benefits that international students bring and giving universities policy stability in that respect, and reversing the decline in quality-related funding for research. Finally, the Government should work with the sector to put clear plans in place for any university that finds itself in financial distress. We really do not want to lose any university in the higher education sector.

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

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 2—Report on the impact on Higher Education—

“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on the provision of degree apprenticeships in England.

(2) The Report must include an impact assessment of the removal of apprenticeship levy funding for degree apprenticeships.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

New clause 3—Report on the impact on T levels—

“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on T-Levels.

(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—

(a) the involvement of Skills England in the administration of T Levels, including the curriculum and assessment methods;

(b) an assessment of the independence of the accreditation of T-Levels, specifically whether there has been any involvement of the Secretary of State in this process; and

(c) an assessment of the extent to which T-Levels are meeting local demand for skills.

(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”

New clause 4—Creation of Skills England—

“(1) A body corporate known as Skills England is established to carry out the functions transferred to the Secretary of State under this Act.

(2) At the end of a year after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations transferring to Skills England all the functions transferred from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education under this Act.

(3) Nothing in this section prevents the Secretary of State from transferring more functions to Skills England under other enactments.”

This new clause would put Skills England on an independent statutory footing rather than as part of the DfE. The role of IfATE would be included in that planned for Skills England.

Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(3B) A group of persons under subsection (3) must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”

Amendment 5, page 2, line 6, at end insert—

“(3B) When approving a standard under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable requirements of—

(a) industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and

(b) persons who may wish to undertake education and training.”

Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 2, line 32, at end insert—

“(6B) When approving a standard under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable requirements of—

(a) industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and

(b) persons who may wish to undertake education and training.”

Amendment 1, in clause 9, page 4, line 13, after “England” insert

“, including the impact of removing apprenticeship level funding for degree apprenticeships”.

Amendment 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert—

“(c) the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions on the provision of level 7 apprenticeships in England”

Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 5, line 6, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

“(1) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of one year beginning on the day on which Skills England is created.”

[Ian Sollom]

In considering the transfer of functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, we face fundamental questions about the Government’s accountability and the future structure of our skills system. While modest in size, the Bill has far-reaching implications for that system, and for millions of learners and apprentices. It represents a significant centralising of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without providing proper mechanisms for parliamentary oversight or accountability.

I have sat through many hours of debate on the Bill, during which Labour Members have extolled the virtues of Skills England, but let me emphasise again that the Bill does not actually establish that body, as many assumed that it would. It simply abolishes IfATE and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State, an approach that risks creating a governance vacuum in which there is no proper scrutiny or independent oversight. It is clear from the evidence received by the Bill Committee that I am not alone in having those concerns. The Association of Colleges, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the University of Winchester and the Institute of the Motor Industry all raised similar issues relating to governance and accountability in their written evidence submissions to the Committee.

As was noted by many on Second Reading, skills policy in this country has suffered from constant reorganisation and restructuring. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has reminded us several times that Skills England will be the 13th skills body to be established in 50 years. Given that history, employers, providers and learners desperately need stability and clarity. In its evidence, the University of Winchester warned:

“The transfer of power from IfATE to the Secretary of State for Education raises questions about the independence of the proposed Skills England regulatory body.”

It also observed that in IfATE, at present,

“employers and academics come together to ensure that the standard is industry relevant, current, and academically rigorous.”

The Skills Federation raised similar concerns:

“The clauses in the bill which transfer powers from IFATE to the Secretary of State risk shifting the development of standards further away from employer demand.”

It also said:

“Too much centralisation leads to a lack of focus on sector needs”.

[Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the new clause would help colleges such as Bridgwater and Taunton college, the biggest provider of apprenticeships in England? Will he join me, and other Members, in encouraging those colleges on their path towards awarding their own degrees?

[Ian Sollom]

I entirely endorse what my hon. Friend has said, and I certainly encourage those colleges on their path. As I will explain, my new clause will enable Skills England to support them more fully.

Equally concerning is the need for effective cross-departmental co-ordination. Skills policy does not exist in isolation. Skills England needs to work with, among others, the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on future workforce needs, the Migration Advisory Committee on reducing reliance on overseas workers, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero on green skills, the Department for Work and Pensions on employment programmes, the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on priority sectors, the Department of Health and Social Care on workforce planning, and, following the Chancellor’s spring statement last week, the new defence growth board on critical skills for our defence industry.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the past, the hon. Gentleman has mentioned the construction sector. We welcome the news that the Government will build 1.3 million houses, but that requires builders, plumbers, carpenters, electricians and plasterers, and they must be trained, so that they can do that job well. Does he feel that his new clause will enable the building of those 1.3 million houses?

[Ian Sollom]

I would hope that better scrutiny and accountability in Parliament would help with delivering what is required, and holding the Government to account when it comes to keeping their promises.

On the cross-departmental work that I mentioned, the lack of a published framework for Skills England as we consider the Bill is deeply concerning, and what we have seen so far suggests a structure that is heavily Department for Education-centric. Without statutory independence and appropriate seniority, Skills England will struggle to drive the cross-departmental co-ordination that Members on both sides of the House agree our skills system needs.

[Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says. He is, of course, right that the measures would represent considerable centralisation, if it was not for the creation of Skills England. He has mentioned a number of Government Departments. Does he think that IfATE, a non-governmental body, has been successful in bringing all their work together, and that a Government body will not be, or is he arguing for something different?

[Ian Sollom]

I will come to my preference for an executive agency that fits what the Government want to do. That is the reason for my new clause, and I do not think that it need delay efforts. Ultimately, a statutory, departmental body would have more clout. On the basis of what we understand, at least, I think that the remit for Skills England is very different from the remit for IfATE when it comes to that cross-departmental working.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

This Government have just taken bold action by abolishing NHS England, the largest quango in the world. Part of the motivation for doing so was the need to ensure that when something is not going right in the NHS, the buck does not stop with a quango that we Back-Bench MPs cannot question directly, but with Ministers. That is better for governance and for scrutiny; it means that when the Health Secretary says that something is not going well enough, we can question him robustly and challenge him to improve. Surely the hon. Gentleman sees that the way to push Skills England to be as robust as possible is by having strong governance.

[Ian Sollom]

There are different options, and I will come to this issue later. Given the scale of cross-departmental working required, having Skills England sit outside a single Government Department is probably more effective. Moreover, such bodies can be held accountable effectively by Parliament, as we have seen with some other quangos. Indeed, I believe the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council will be set up as a statutory independent body when time allows, and I suggest that Skills England is of the same order of magnitude.

Beyond the concerns about accountability and cross-Government authority, there are practical, operational risks to the approach laid out in the Bill. The Skills Federation warned in its evidence that

“there is a key risk that transfer of functions from IfATE will become the key focus for the set-up of Skills England and less attention (and potentially resources) placed on achieving the overarching aims.”

There is significant concern that the broader strategic purpose of Skills England could be lost in the rush to transfer operational functions. That concern was echoed by Lord Blunkett, who suggested that

“there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]

The Government’s impact assessment also acknowledges risks, noting that the transfer of functions could

“potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process”,

which

“may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners.”

In Committee, the Minister emphasised the urgent need to address skills shortages and said that delay “is not an option.” Although we share the Government’s commitment to addressing skills shortages urgently, I respectfully suggest that there is wisdom in heeding the warning that the University of Warwick gave in its evidence. Getting the foundations right is more important than hasty construction.

In light of those concerns, I tabled new clause 1, which I proposed in Committee. It provides a constructive solution to many of the issues that I have outlined, and proposes a clear pathway for establishing Skills England as a dedicated executive agency within the Department for Education. As I said, my party ultimately believes that a fully independent statutory body with cross-departmental authority is the optimal approach, but we recognise the Government’s preference for the executive agency model, so new clause 1 works within that structure but provides essential safeguards. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would produce draft proposals for establishing Skills England within six months, lay the proposals before both Houses, secure parliamentary approval before establishing the agency, provide annual statements on the agency’s work, and evaluate its effectiveness 12 months after establishment. This approach strikes the right balance between allowing the Government to implement policy at their desired speed and ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny and meaningful stakeholder engagement.

As I said, I tabled new clause 1 in Committee because I believe that parliamentary scrutiny is essential for an organisation with such far-reaching responsibilities. The Minister argued that the standard accountability mechanisms for executive agencies are sufficient. However, I contend that Skills England is not just another executive agency; it is central to the Government’s economic growth mission and to creating opportunities for millions of people.

Standard executive agency protocols are built for “business as usual” functions, not for what should be transformative bodies at the heart of the Government’s economic strategy. Having a properly accountable Skills England, even as an executive agency, would ensure that employer voices remain central to standards development rather than being merely consultative; that technical expertise is maintained and developed across economic cycles; that Parliament maintains appropriate oversight for this critical area of policy; and, crucially, that political short-termism does not override long-term skills planning.

In Committee, the Minister argued against new clause 1 on several grounds. First, she suggested that it would cause unnecessary delay in addressing urgent skills challenges. Secondly, she pointed to the existing accountability mechanisms for executive agencies, including framework documents and reporting requirements. Thirdly, she emphasised that Skills England is already operating in shadow form and is poised to take these functions when the Bill passes. Let me address those concerns. On the issue of delay, new clause 1 would require reporting and parliamentary approval within six months—a reasonable timeframe that would not significantly impede progress. As the Skills Federation noted, proper planning for the transfer of functions is essential for success, and parliamentary scrutiny would reinforce, rather than impede, the effective delivery of Skills England.

The existing accountability mechanisms are indeed important, but they are surely insufficient for an organisation of Skills England’s significance. As the University of Winchester argued in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee, Skills England should be structured

“to ensure and protect its regulatory independence from Government and other agencies.”

The framework document and annual reports are important tools, but they are prepared by the Executive without any meaningful parliamentary input.

Skills England’s current shadow operations are welcome preparation, but operating in shadow form, without parliamentary scrutiny or approval, only underscores the need for new clause 1. Important decisions about structure, governance and priorities are being made right now, without any oversight in this place.

The Secretary of State indicated on Second Reading that the Government may review Skills England’s status in 18 to 24 months to consider whether it needs to be an independent statutory body, and the Minister confirmed that timetable in Committee. But why wait? Why create uncertainty about the future status of an organisation that needs to establish credibility with employers now? It is worth noting—as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), did in Committee—that the Government plan to put the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on a statutory footing “when parliamentary time allows”, according to their own documentation. This suggests that they recognise the value of key strategic bodies’ statutory independence, so why should Skills England be treated differently?

New clause 1 offers a constructive path forward, building on the debates we have already had. Personally, I was disappointed that the Government opposed it in Committee, but I believe that the case for proper parliamentary scrutiny remains compelling. Although my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I ultimately believe that a fully independent statutory body would be the ideal model for Skills England, new clause 1 would work within the Government’s executive agency framework to add essential parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.

The Minister assured us in Committee that Skills England will have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability. If the Government truly believe in those principles, they should welcome rather than resist proper parliamentary oversight. If Skills England is to be the cornerstone of our skills system for years to come, even as an Executive agency with the Department for Education, we must ensure that it has the transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight to withstand changes in political priorities and economic circumstances.

I urge Members across the House to support new clause 1, which would strengthen the Bill and help ensure that the transfer of functions leads to better outcomes for apprentices, students, employers and the economy as a whole.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call Pam Cox. Happy birthday! [Interruption.] Do you wish to contribute, or are you going to celebrate your birthday on the Back Benches?

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

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 20th March 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Ms Furniss. I rise to move new clause 1, which addresses fundamental concerns about the governance and accountability of Skills England. While the Bill as amended in the Lords does now make reference to Skills England, which the original Bill presented to the Lords did not, it still does not establish it properly as an organisation, define its powers, or provide robust mechanisms for parliamentary scrutiny of its work.

The Bill, as we know, simply abolishes the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education and transfers its functions directly to the Secretary of State, with only limited reporting requirements. The most recent evidence provided to the Committee reinforces those concerns, particularly the evidence from the Skills Federation, as was highlighted by the shadow Minister.

New clause 1 remedies that by requiring comprehensive proposals for Skills England to be laid before Parliament for proper scrutiny and approval. It would ensure that both Houses have a meaningful say in how the organisation is structured and operates. It would establish ongoing accountability through annual statements to Parliament and formal evaluation of its governance structure within the first year.

The Government have positioned Skills England as transformative, and the Minister’s letter to peers, which was also shared with the Committee early this week, outlines hugely impressive ambitions for Skills England. I welcome those, as I think we all do. But the governance framework described in that letter is largely discretionary. The framework document that the Minister references in that letter, which has still not formally been published, will be finalised by agreement between the Department and Skills England, with no formal parliamentary input at all.

We are being asked to approve a fundamental restructuring of the skills system without proper guarantees about how the body will operate or be held accountable. The skills system is simply too critical to proceed just on faith. I think Members on the Government Benches would be making the same arguments if they were in our position. I want to stress that the new clause is not about preventing the creation of Skills England; it is about ensuring it is established with the proper scrutiny and accountability that an organisation of such importance deserves. If the Government truly believe in Skills England as the vehicle to address our skills challenges, they should welcome the provisions for proper accountability in new clause 1.

[Neil O’Brien]

I rise only to support the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. I shall speak to new clauses 2 and 3 later, but I do not want the hon. Member to feel that that is because I do not support new clause 1. I absolutely do. I think it is entirely sensible, and if the Government had sense then they would listen to him and include the new clause in the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for tabling new clause 1, which would require the Secretary of State to lay draft proposals for a new executive agency, to be known as Skills England, before Parliament within six months of the Bill gaining Royal Assent.

Complexity and fragmentation within the skills systems are contributing to critical skill gaps in our economy. We need to urgently reform the delivery of skills and technical education without delay—I cannot stress that enough. After 14 years of inaction, we really need to get on with the job and build back the foundations. We plan to establish Skills England as an executive agency requiring a robust and rigorous process. That process applies across Government for all executive agencies. As with all new executive agencies, the approval of the creation of Skills England will be announced to Parliament in a written ministerial statement to both Houses. In line with other executive agencies, Skills England will be required to have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability, including to Parliament. Ministers, the principal accounting officer and the chief executive will all be accountable to Parliament, and could appear before Select Committees if invited.

The broader governance and accountability framework in which Skills England will operate will be set out in the framework document. All arm’s length bodies have such a core constitutional document, which must be approved by the Treasury. The framework document will detail how Skills England will regularly report on its functions and performance, including by publishing a corporate plan and annual report.

There is a high level of interest among Skills England’s stakeholders, such as the Association of Colleges, which has expressed strong support for the plans to establish Skills England, recognising the critical role it will play in the Government’s broader post-16 education and skills agenda. We have listened to and acted on the contributions of peers in the other place, which is why we have provided even greater transparency about what Skills England will do. The Bill already requires the Secretary of State to report within six months of IfATE’s closure. The report will detail which functions are being exercised by Skills England and the impact on apprenticeships and technical education in England. The new clause is therefore not necessary.

We need to address the urgent skills challenges in our economy. There is already a robust approach to establishing and running an executive agency, and the Government have included in the Bill a legislative commitment to a report on Skills England’s functions. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to reconsider.

[Ian Sollom]

I thank the Minister for her response. In the interests of time—and lunch—I will not go into detail. I wish to press the new clause to a vote.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Catherine McKinnell]

We are very open to ideas for how we can best use the school estate to meet the needs of young people, including those with SEND. We are determined to deliver a wide range of reforms, and I—or, indeed, the early years Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss how we can best use the resource in his constituency for the benefit of all the children who need it.

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

Last week the Department announced that colleges would receive only two thirds of the funding that they were promised for the 35,000 additional 16 to 18-year-old students enrolled last autumn, a decision that could lead to thousands of prospective students being turned away this September. That follows a cut in the adult skills funding. Can the Secretary of State explain how cutting promised funds will help to address skills shortages in the economy and help to deliver the Government’s growth mission?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I absolutely agree that skills are critical to driving growth. That is why we are now spending over £400 million more on 16-to-19 education—£100 million more than was announced at the Budget—including £87 million in in-year growth funding, to ensure that places are available where needed. Through the reforms that we are driving with Skills England, we will make sure that where there was once a fragmented skills system, we have a coherent system that supports all our young people and adult learners, too.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Ellie Chowns]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 9

Requirement to provide information about bereavement services

“(1) The Secretary of State must by regulations establish a protocol for the collection and dissemination of information relating to bereavement support services for children and young people.

(2) A protocol made under subsection (1) must—

(a) define the bereavement support services to which the protocol applies, which must include services provided by—

(i) local authorities;

(ii) NHS bodies; and

(iii) charities and other third sector organisations;

(b) place a duty on the Secretary of State to publish information, including online, about services to which the protocol applies;

(c) place a duty on specified public bodies and other persons to provide information to children and young people about services to which the protocol applies, including—

(i) specialist services for children and young people;

(ii) services provided online; and

(iii) accessible services for deaf and disabled children and young people;

(d) where a duty under paragraph (c) applies, require the identification of children or young people who may require a service to which the protocol applies.

(3) The Secretary of State must make regulations under this section by statutory instrument.

(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.

(5) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing regulations under this section within 12 months of the passing of this Act.”—(Ian Sollom.)

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to establish a protocol for the collection and dissemination of information about bereavement support services to children and young people.

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52— Bereavement policy in schools—

“(1) The governing body of a relevant school in England has a duty to develop and publish a bereavement policy.

(2) A policy developed under this section must include—

(a) a process for supporting a pupil or staff member facing or following bereavement;

(b) details of how the school will incorporate opportunities to learn about death and bereavement as part of life in its taught curriculum;

(c) details of partnership arrangements with child bereavement services; and

(d) arrangements for staff training.

(3) In developing a policy under this section, the governing body of the school must consult with bereaved pupils and their parents or carers.

(4) The Secretary of State must provide, or make arrangements for the provision of, appropriate financial and other support to school governing bodies for their purposes of facilitating the fulfilling of the duty in this section.

(5) For the purposes of this section, “relevant school” means—

(a) an academy school,

(b) an alternative provision Academy,

(c) a maintained school,

(d) a non-maintained special school,

(e) an independent school, or

(f) a pupil referral unit.”

This new clause would require schools to develop and publish a bereavement policy.

[Ian Sollom]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am moving this new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). According to the Childhood Bereavement Network, around one in 29 school-aged children—about one per classroom—has been bereaved of a parent or sibling. Many more will lose grandparents, and sadly some will have lost their friends. Each year, data is collected on the number of adults bereaved of their husband, wife or child, and until recently data was collected on the number of children affected by the divorce of their parents. However, no similar data is collected on the number who face the devastating loss of their mum or dad or someone else really important in their life.

All that means that when a child is bereaved, there is no obvious way of letting them know what support is available to them, despite a diverse range of services offered by organisations across the country, including Winston’s Wish, Child Bereavement UK and the Childhood Bereavement Network, which all offer online and group sessions with trained professionals and peer-to-peer services for young people to share their experience with each other. Those services are really important in engaging those young people going through quite a diverse range of circumstances, many of which will need quite bespoke support, whether that is specifically around children with disabilities or additional needs, children who might be in a rural community where they are more isolated, or simply the difference between losing someone suddenly versus through a long-term illness.

We know that schools do very good work in supporting vulnerable young people through bereavement, but it is not consistent in every school. Many young people will need help at times when school is not available, such as in the holidays and in the evenings, and they may just feel embarrassed about asking people at school. New clause 9 would finally put in a simple protocol to ensure that every child who is bereaved knows that support is out there if they would like to access it. This is a relatively low-cost, low-effort task that would help those charities to connect with grieving families and young people and provide that support to children to help them to process those difficult, traumatic experiences and, in turn, try to prevent the long-term negative impacts that can arise from bereavement.

[Ellie Chowns]

I rise to speak to new clause 52 on bereavement policy in schools, which is closely related to new clause 9.

The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has already alluded to the fact that no official data is collected on the number of children and young people who are bereaved of someone important in their lives. In the absence of annual statistics, the Childhood Bereavement Network has estimated that over 46,000 children and young people are bereaved of a parent each year in the UK. That is a huge number—around 127 each day. Data from representative samples suggest that about one in 29 children and young people in school today—roughly one per classroom—has been bereaved of a parent or sibling at some point in their childhood. Some 70% of primary schools have at least one recently bereaved pupil on roll. That means that all schools are likely to be touched by bereavement, and those ripples of grief can be felt across the whole school community.

When somebody in the family is terminally ill or has died, just getting to school, concentrating, getting on with peers and managing emotions can be hugely challenging, and can have major consequences for attendance and achievement in the long term. Parentally bereaved young people’s GCSE scores are an average of half a grade lower than their non-bereaved peers; in one study, girls bereaved of a sibling scored almost a full grade below their matched controls. Bereavement also has long-term effects further in life. The death of a parent by age 16 is associated with women failing to gain any sort of qualification, and both men and women being unemployed at the age of 30.

Schools clearly have a huge role to play in supporting children facing such tragic circumstances. Two years ago, the independent UK Commission on Bereavement surveyed children, young people and adults about their experiences of bereavement. It found some examples of fantastic practice and support in schools, but it was far from universal. Just under half of the bereaved children, young people and adults who shared their experiences said that they got little or no support from their education setting after their bereavement. That is such a tragic missed opportunity.

Many children and young people shared the loneliness, isolation, and lack of acknowledgment and support that they had faced. For example, a young teenager said:

“I knew my teachers all knew, but no-one spoke to me about the fact they knew, so it felt like an unspoken secret.”

A primary-aged child said:

“I felt like I was the only one whose daddy had died.”

Another teenager said:

“Everyone sees it as me just misbehaving. Maybe if teachers and any other adults involved were trained to see the signs I wouldn’t of been left for the last 18 months with no support.”

These young people are crying out for support from their schools and from us.

To address the challenges, the commission recommended that all education establishments should be required to have a bereavement policy, including staff training and a process for supporting bereaved children and their families. In line with wider evidence from parents, teachers, and children and young people themselves supporting the inclusion of grief education in the curriculum, the commission also recommended that students should have opportunities to learn about coping with grief as a life skill.

New clause 52 would directly address the inconsistencies in support that grieving children and young people face, and it would help schools to get on the front foot. At the moment, they often reach out for support in crisis mode when a pupil is facing bereavement or has been recently bereaved. They make contact with local child bereavement services, scrambling for guidance on how to respond, how to tell the rest of the school community, and how to make a plan to support grieving pupils coming back to school. All too often, they wish they had done that work in advance of the crisis. The new clause would help schools to be wise before the event, to respond calmly and consistently, and to help children and young people stay on course as they navigate this most challenging of events in their life.

I have tabled this as a probing amendment; I am interested to hear the Minister’s response. I hope that the Government will consider taking this opportunity to write into legislation the requirement for schools to provide support, consistently across the country, to the children and young people who desperately need it, to ensure that bereavement is addressed by every school to improve the life chances of children facing these most difficult circumstances.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I thank the hon. Members for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and for North Herefordshire for raising those important issues. Bereavement touches the lives of everyone, and it has a unique impact on each person. It is particularly important that children and young people who lose someone close to them are able to access support when they need it.

New clause 9 seeks to improve access to bereavement support services for children. It seeks to establish a duty to make regulations to establish a protocol to provide information on those services. The Government continue to consider how to improve access to existing support. The cross-Government bereavement group, chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care and attended by representatives from the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, continues to look at how we can improve access to support and options to improve data collection. There are many fantastic charities and community groups—the Childhood Bereavement Network, Hope Again, the Anna Freud centre and the Ruth Strauss Foundation, to name just four—that provide vital support, and schools and other public bodies perform vital roles in supporting bereaved children and families. A legislative solution would therefore not be the most appropriate way to ensure bereaved children and young people access the support they need.

On new clause 52 and the matter of requiring schools to publish a bereavement policy, including the approach to grief education, we know that teachers and other school staff do an excellent job in understanding the specific needs of their pupils and identifying what support is needed for a range of life experiences, including bereavement. To support them in that, the Department for Education provides a list of resources for schools on supporting pupils’ mental health and wellbeing. That includes resources from charities and organisations, including those I just mentioned, and resources hosted on the Mentally Healthy Schools site for mental health needs, which includes supporting children dealing with loss and bereavement.

On the curriculum, following the consultation that ended in July last year, we are currently reviewing the relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance, which sets out the content of what children and young people are taught about these subjects. It is also clear in the current RSHE statutory guidance that teachers should be aware of common adverse childhood experiences, including bereavement. We want to ensure that children’s wellbeing is at the heart of the guidance, and we are looking carefully at the consultation responses, considering the relevant evidence and talking to stakeholders before setting out next steps to take the RSHE guidance forward. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt our response to the consultation, nor the publication of the RSHE curriculum guidance. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is reassured that we will consider that as part of our work on RSHE. We will continue to provide support from the Department and right across Government to help schools support children and young people who experience bereavement and other significant adverse experiences in their childhood.

[Ian Sollom]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

Benefits of outdoor education to children’s wellbeing

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review on the benefits of outdoor education to children's wellbeing.

(2) A report on the review must be published within six months of the conclusion of the review.”—(Ian Sollom.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ian Sollom]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Provision of residential outdoor education for children in kinship care—

“(1) A local authority must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that children living in kinship care receive at least one residential outdoor education experience.

(2) For the purposes of this section, children living in kinship care has the meaning provided for by section 22I of the Children Act 1989 (as amended by this Act).”

[Ian Sollom]

I am moving the new clauses on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Many hon. Members will know that he has long been a champion of the benefits of outdoor education. Academic research has shown that greater exposure to natural environments improves learning behaviour and emotional health. Studies have found measurable academic and wellbeing benefits from nature-specific outdoor learning. Even a single outdoor educational experience reduces anxiety, builds resilience and improves focus in the long term, especially for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or anxiety disorders.

We know that children’s wellbeing is suffering. Children are experiencing rising mental health concerns, reduced physical activity and limited access to nature, so there is a real need to support their wellbeing. Outdoor education is proven to improve physical, emotional and social health.

New clause 11 would require the Government to review the impact of outdoor education on children’s wellbeing, with the aim of providing a foundation to embed outdoor education into the curriculum. New clause 12 considers children in kinship care, or those with kinship care experience, and would give them at least one residential outdoor education opportunity and ensure that they are not left behind in accessing those benefits. We would like to hear from the Government about these new clauses.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his campaign to promote the positive effects of outdoor learning on young people. He clearly has the advantage of living in and representing one of the most beautiful parts of the world.

We believe that all children and young people should have the opportunity to learn about and connect with nature. Access to green space has been shown to have positive impacts on the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of young people. The national education nature park provides opportunities for children and young people to benefit from spending time in nature, as well as to take positive climate action and to drive solutions to address the growing concerns about climate change and biodiversity loss. The nature park is a key initiative of the Department for Education’s sustainability and climate change strategy, which was launched in 2022.

In the light of progress in the past three years, we are now beginning a process of refreshing and updating the strategic vision for sustainability in the education sector. We are also working with the University of Oxford on research intended to assess the evidence of the impact of nature-based programmes, delivered through schools, on the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people. Once those results are published, I will be happy to share them with the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.

The Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, and to giving them access to a variety of enrichment opportunities at school. Those are both important parts of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity, helping pupils to achieve and thrive in education.

There is no statutory requirement to offer extracurricular activities, but the majority of schools do because those activities complement a rich and broad curriculum. Schools include a wide range of activities, such as enabling students to take part in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, supporting them to access local youth services, and building in trips to outdoor education settings. It is right that schools should be free to decide what activities to offer their pupils so as to best support their development, to help them work with others as part of a team, and to support positive wellbeing.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s adventures away from home fund provides bursaries for disadvantaged or vulnerable young people to participate in day trips and residentials to outdoor spaces. There are bursaries available for young people aged 11 to 18—or up to 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities—who face significant barriers to participation and are under-represented in the sector. We are also extending local authority statutory duties to include promoting the educational achievement of all children living in kinship care, within the meaning of the proposed new section 22I(1) of the Children Act 1989, which will be inserted by the Bill. We will also extend virtual school heads’ duty to provide information and advice to include all children living with a special guardian or a child arrangement order, where the child is living with a kinship carer, within the meaning of proposed new section 22I(6).

On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to withdraw new clause 11 and not to press new clause 12 to a vote.

[Ian Sollom]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 13

Foster carers’ delegated authority for children in their care

“(1) Where a child (‘C’) who is looked after by the local authority is placed with a foster parent (‘F’) by a local authority, F may make decisions on C’s behalf in relation to the matters set out in subsection (2) where C’s placement plan does not specify an alternative decision maker.

(2) The matters referred to in subsection (1) are—

(a) medical and dental treatment,

(b) education,

(c) leisure and home life,

(d) faith and religious observance,

(e) use of social media,

(f) personal care, and

(g) any other matters which F considers appropriate.” —(Ellie Chowns.)

This new clause would enable foster carers to make day-to-day decisions on behalf of the children and young people they foster.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ellie Chowns]

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

I am pleased to speak to new clause 13, which proposes that the Bill should provide a default delegated authority for foster carers to make day-to-day decisions for the children and young people in their care, which I think is quite straightforward.

Foster carers should have delegated authority to make these everyday decisions for children in their care—for example, about day-to-day activities such as school trips, holidays and sleepovers; about important appointments for their health and wellbeing or medical appointments; or indeed about haircuts, which is an issue that has been raised regularly by young people in care and their foster carers.

The guidance around delegated authority has not been strengthened since 2013. As a result, practice varies across fostering services, and foster carers are often unclear about which decisions they can take and which decisions they have to get permission for from elsewhere. Many foster carers report experiencing a lack of communication, clarity and information from social workers, with unnecessary paperwork and box ticking, and complicated processes.

In the Fostering Network’s 2024 state of the nations survey, less than a third of foster carers said children’s social workers are always clear about which decisions they have the authority to make in relation to the children they foster. That lack of clarity is clearly a huge issue for a large majority of foster carers. Only half of foster carers said that social workers are able to respond to requests for decisions in a timely manner; we all know social workers are under huge pressure. Foster carers reported that the most difficult decisions to make were around social opportunities, followed by healthcare, relationships and childhood experiences.

This new clause would set out in legislation that foster carers have default delegated authority on key everyday decisions where the child’s placement plan does not specify an alternative decision maker—and the placement plan can always specify that alternative. That default delegated authority would include decisions in day-to-day parenting, such as healthcare and leisure activities, and it would exclude routine but longer-term decisions such as school choice and significant events, such as surgery. It would provide more clarity, speed up decision making within foster families and for social workers, and provide foster carers with the confidence and autonomy that they need to make day-to-day decisions for the children who are in their care.

I urge the Government to take on board these points, and the content of this new clause, to make it easier for foster carers to make those decisions for children who, after all, they know best as they are caring for them. The new clause would ensure that children and young people do not miss out on the opportunities that they need to live a happy and healthy childhood.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Home education is a choice taken by parents for a number of different reasons, as we have previously heard when debating this Bill. However, just because a parent chooses to educate their child at home and not take up a local authority school place, it should not mean that their child cannot access the examination system. At present, access to examinations for home-educated children is extremely limited, as there are only commercial providers in that space, which means that it becomes very expensive for parents. Examination space is often limited, especially for those with SEND. This new clause would ensure that all children can access and sit national examinations in order to prepare for life in further education and the world of work.

In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Stephen Morgan]

The new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham, seeks to create a duty for local authorities to make provision for children who are eligible to be included on the children not in school registers to sit any relevant national examination should a parent request that, and

“to provide financial assistance to enable the child to sit”

such examinations. Electing to home educate is not an easy decision, and home educating children is a massive undertaking. I applaud those parents who work tremendously hard to do so. However, parents who choose to home educate assume full responsibility for the education of their child, and our guidance is clear on that.

The choice to home educate should be an informed one, with full awareness of potential challenges and the associated costs. That includes considering and planning in advance how to access examinations and qualifications for the child, including making inquiries with local centres as early as possible. To assist with that, the Joint Council for Qualifications publishes a list of centres that are available to private candidates to take their examinations. Parents can also contact exam boards, which may be able to direct them to a centre where their child can sit exams.

The Bill introduces a duty on all English local authorities to provide support in the form of advice and information to all eligible families who request it. For the first time that creates an established baseline of support to ensure that wherever home educating families live, they have access to a reliable level of support from their local authority. Within that duty, I expect local authorities, when requested, to provide advice and information to private candidates about how to access and navigate the examination system.

Local authorities retain discretion to provide further support above that baseline to families in their local area if they choose to do so. Some may choose to contribute towards the cost of examinations for families in their area. That is a decision for each local authority, depending on its budgetary position and local need. I therefore ask the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to withdraw the new clause.

[Ian Sollom]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Consultation on the structures of governance for local authority and academy schools

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a public consultation on the current structures of governance within both local authority and academy schools.

(2) The consultation conducted under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the role of school governors;

(b) the statutory duties of school governors;

(c) ways to encourage people to become school governors; and

(d) any other matters that the Secretary of State may see fit.

(3) The Secretary of State must issue the consultation conducted under subsection (1) within one year of the commencement of this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the consultation closing, publish and lay before Parliament his response to the consultation.” —(Ian Sollom.)

This new clause instigates a review of school governance in light of the severe shortage of school governors and the increasing responsibilities that volunteer governors are taking on.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Ian Sollom]

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

I move this new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), who is herself a school governor, to highlight the severe shortage of school governors and the increasing responsibilities they face. The recruitment of governors has become increasingly difficult. Indeed, the National Governance Association estimates that in 2022 vacancies hit a six-year high at 20,000. Its latest report last year revealed that 76% of schools found it difficult to recruit governors, while 44% of boards had two or more vacancies, up from 33% three years ago. Moreover, 30% of governors considered resigning because of an inability to balance their governance responsibilities with their jobs.

Evidence shows that the responsibilities of school governors have significantly increased over time, and Ofsted said that since schools’ autonomy increased, starting with the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the role has become more important but also more complex. Historically, school governors provided formal oversight, but they are now also expected to ensure regular performance reviews and financial oversight, and to hold school leadership accountable. The position has become increasingly professionalised, and Ofsted has identified that growth in responsibility as a key factor in many schools struggling to achieve a good or higher rating. That is largely because governors fail to focus on holding school leadership accountable, and have that split responsibility with other aspects of the role. The new clause seeks to probe that issue more, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Catherine McKinnell]

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss governance structures in schools and academies. I sincerely thank the incredible volunteer force, which is a vital part of our system. I have such admiration for those in our communities who step up and invest their precious time and energy in our schools and young people. Governors and trustees work tirelessly in the interests of pupils and students in what we recognise is an often challenging environment. We really do owe them a debt of thanks.

--- Later in debate ---

Existing legislation and guidance already enable flexibility in relation to governance structures’ size and constitution, and we encourage governing boards to take advantage of the flexibilities they already have when designing their governance structures and assessing their individual needs. We continue to keep the legal requirements and guidance on governance under review, and we will make changes that improve the system. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that we are already working with the sector to address these challenges, and that he will accordingly withdraw the new clause.

[Ian Sollom]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 39

Establishment of Child Protection Authority

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.

(2) The purpose of such an Authority will be to—

(a) improve practice in child protection;

(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection;

(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards; and

(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.

(3) The Authority must act with a view to—

(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;

(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”—(Munira Wilson.)

This new clause would seek to fulfil the second recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in establishing a Child Protection Authority for England.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Munira Wilson]

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

I rise to speak to new clause 39, in my name and those of a number of my hon. Friends, which seeks to fulfil the second recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse by establishing a child protection authority in England, which would be an arm’s length body of the Government on a par with organisations such as the National Crime Agency. As the inquiry set out, its role would be to

“improve practice in child protection by institutions, including statutory agencies;…provide advice to government in relation to policy and reform to improve child protection, including through the publication of regular reports to Parliament and making recommendations; and…inspect institutions as it considers necessary.”

I recently met Professor Jay and a member of the panel who was involved in that review, and they felt that there are certain gaps in the inspection regime across the country, so having this overarching national body with a focus on child protection is a really important recommendation and step forward. Indeed, it was the report’s second recommendation. The child protection authority would monitor the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations.

I am very grateful that the Government have already committed to implementing the recommendations, but I gently say to Ministers that this Bill, which we have spent several weeks going through in detail, already focuses on a number of safeguards and child protection measures. One of the many reasons that the previous Government gave for not implementing some of the recommendations was a lack of legislative time, which I struggle to understand given the number of times the House rose early in the previous Parliament. Given that the IICSA recommendation requires legislation and we are considering a very relevant Bill, I am not entirely sure that the Government are committed to implementing it as they are not legislating for a child protection authority.

When we discussed new clause 15 this morning, the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said that many of the crimes explored in the report are undoubtedly ongoing. Therefore, what could be more important than putting these provisions in place? I very much hope Ministers will seriously consider implementing this recommendation quickly and using the legislative opportunity. Even if they will not accept my new clause, there is time as the Bill progresses through Parliament to put into legislation one of Professor Jay’s key recommendations.

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.)

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fifth sitting)

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 28th January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[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.

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

I will speak to amendments 23, 40 and 41 and to clause 7.

Amendment 23 was tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, and I thank them for it. The amendment draws attention to an important principle that must run through the whole approach that local authorities take to listening and responding to the wishes and feelings of their care leavers. When a local authority is assessing what staying close support should be provided to a young person, it should have regard to their wishes, which is why we intend to publish statutory guidance that will draw on established good practice that we want all local authorities to consider. It will cover how that will work, with interconnecting duties, especially the duty to prepare a pathway plan and keep it under a review. In developing and maintaining the plan and support arrangements, there is a requirement for the care leaver’s wishes to be considered.

In response to the specific questions raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, as I said, pathway planning is already a statutory requirement to eligible care leavers, so the statutory guidance will set out how and when care leavers should be assessed based on their own needs and using the current duties to support care leavers with reference to a trusted individual. Those individuals will often already be known to the young person, such as a former children’s home staff member, and that will clearly be set out in the statutory guidance. We will base that on the best practice that we see already in train.

On the lifelong links, we are currently funding 50 family finding, befriending and mentoring programmes, which are being delivered by 45 local authorities. The programmes will help children in care and care leavers to identify and connect with important people in their lives, improving their sense of identity and community and creating and sustaining consistent, stable and loving relationships. I recognise the points that the hon. Gentleman made. The Department for Education has commissioned an independent evaluation of the family finding, befriending and mentoring programme, which will inform decisions about the future of the programme and how it will work.

On amendment 40, each care leaver will have their own levels of need and support. Local authorities have a duty to assess the needs of certain care leavers and prepare, create and maintain a pathway for and with them. Statutory guidance already makes it clear that the pathway planning process must address a young person’s financial needs and independent living skills. Where eligible, they will be able to have access to financial support and benefits as well as support to manage those benefits and allowances themselves. That will be strengthened by the support made available through clause 7, including advice, information and representation, to find and keep suitable accommodation, given that budgeting and financial management issues can be a significant barrier to maintaining tenancies for many care leavers. That will include advice and guidance to local authorities to aid in the set-up and delivery, building on best practice of how current grant-funded local authorities are already offering support to access financial services and financial literacy skills for their care leavers.

To respond to amendment 41, we know that some care leavers may not feel ready to live independently straight away; that is where supported lodgings can offer an important suitable alternative. They are an excellent way for individuals with appropriate training to offer a room to a young person leaving care and a way for that young person to get the practical and emotional support to help them to develop the skills they need for independent living. We will continue to encourage the use of supported lodgings for care leavers where it is in the best interests of the young person.

However, we do not feel that amendment 41 is needed. Clause 7(4)(a) specifies that staying close support includes help for eligible care leavers

“to find and keep suitable accommodation”.

That will include support to find and keep supported lodgings where the young person and the local authority consider it appropriate. We will make that and other suitable options absolutely clear in statutory guidance, building on the best practice from the current staying close programme.

--- Later in debate ---

[Damian Hinds]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Ian Sollom]

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

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

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

[Stephen Morgan]

Amendment 24 seeks to place a legal duty on local authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for children placed in secure accommodation—that is, a secure children’s home. The Government’s view is that the amendment is not necessary as there are a number of existing legal duties on local authorities to ensure that wherever children are placed, including in secure accommodation, their needs are met, including the needs for therapeutic treatment. This is part of the duty on local authorities, under primary legislation, to safeguard and promote the welfare of any child that they look after.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Third sitting)

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Committee stage
Thursday 23rd January 2025 Public Bill Committees

Family group decision-making

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

I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 1, page 2, line 11, leave out “may (in particular)” and insert “should, where appropriate”.

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 37, in clause 1, page 2, line 21, leave out lines 21 to 23 and insert—

“(8) The child in relation to whom the family group decision-making meeting is held should be included in the meeting, unless the local authority deems it inappropriate.”

Amendment 18, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(10) Nothing in this section permits an extension to the 26-week limit for care proceedings in section 14(2)(ii) of the Children and Families Act 2014.”

This amendment clarifies that nothing in this section should imply an extension to the statutory 26-week limit for care proceedings.

Amendment 49, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“31ZB Family group decision-making at the point of reunification

(1) This section applies where a care order is to be discharged for the purposes of family reunification.

(2) Usually prior to a child returning home, and no later than one month after the discharge of a care order, the local authority must offer a family-group decision-making meeting to the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child.

(3) If the offer is accepted by at least one person to whom it is made, the local authority must arrange for the meeting to be held.

(4) The family-group decision-making meeting should have the purpose of empowering the child’s family network to promote the long-term safety and wellbeing of the child.

(5) The duty under this section does not apply where the local authority considers that it would not be in the best interests of the child for the family group decision-making meeting to be offered or (as the case may be) to be held.

(6) A ‘family network’, in relation to a child, consists of such persons with an interest in the child’s welfare as the authority considers appropriate to attend the meeting having regard to the child’s best interests, and such persons may (in particular) include—

(a) the child’s parents or any other person with parental responsibility for the child;

(b) relatives, friends or other persons connected with the child.

(7) Where the local authority considers it appropriate, the child in relation to whom the family group decision-making meeting is held may attend the meeting.

(8) In exercising functions under this section in relation to a child, the local authority must seek the views of the child unless it considers that it would not be appropriate to do so.”

This amendment would impose a duty on local authorities to offer family-group decision-making at the point of reunification for children in care, analogous to that proposed before care proceedings are initiated.

Clause stand part.

[Ian Sollom]

Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome the new requirement on local authorities to offer family group decision making, which gives those who care for children, including family members, the opportunity to be involved in putting together that plan for their welfare. The provision strengthens the right to hear the child’s voice, which as we heard in the evidence session is important.

We have a few concerns. As the provision is currently laid out, it might be a little ambiguous. There are lots of different models of family group decision making around, so we would like clarification from the Minister about the principles and standards that are set out in regard to what it actually looks like in practice. Cases where there is domestic violence or coercive control can be hard to identify, so we would like guidance on the principles around that.

We would also like to encourage local authorities to probe into what family group decision making should look like and who should be involved. One example that came to us from the Family Rights Group was of Azariah Hope, who was a care-experienced young parent very frustrated about how she was not offered a family group conference because the local authority presumed that she did not have a family or friend network to draw on.

Amendment 36 strengthens the right for the child to be involved, but still gives the local authority the power to decide on the appropriateness of who should be involved. We would like to hear more from the Minister about what those principles and standards should be for taking family group decision making forward.

[Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. As this is the first amendment on the first day of our line-by-line consideration, I will briefly say that although the Opposition have lots of serious questions about the second part of the Bill, there is much in part 1 of the Bill that we completely support.

In fact, a lot of the Bill builds on work that the last Government were doing. To quote the great 1980s philosopher Belinda Carlisle, we may find that

“We dream the same thing

We want the same thing”.

It may not always seem like that, because we are going to ask some questions, but they are all about improving the Bill. A lot of them are not our questions, but ones put to us by passionate experts and those who work with people in these difficult situations.

The relevant policy document sets out why it is so important to get this clause right. It highlights the number of serious case incidents, which was 405 last year, and the number of child deaths, which was 205—every single one a terrible tragedy. Around half of those deaths were of very young children, often under 2; they are physically the most vulnerable children, because they cannot get away.

Our amendment 18 seeks to make clause 1 work in practice. It reflects some, but not all, of the concerns that we heard in oral evidence on Tuesday from Jacky Tiotto, the chief executive of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. The clause states:

“Before a local authority in England makes an application for an order…the authority must offer a family group decision-making meeting”.

In general, those meetings are a good thing, and we all support them—the last Government supported them; the new Government support them. They are already in statutory guidance.

However, we have two or three nagging worries about what will happen when, as it were, we mandate a good thing. The first is about pace. As I said in the oral evidence session, I worry that once family group decision making becomes a legal process and right, people will use the courts to slow down decision making, and that local authorities will sometimes worry about fulfilling this new requirement—although the meetings are generally a good thing—when their absolute priority should be getting a child away from a dangerous family quickly.

A long time ago, when I used to work with people who were street homeless, I met a woman who was a very heavy heroin user and a prostitute. She was about to have—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

Children are at the heart of this legislation. The clause makes sure that the offer of a family-led meeting is made only if it is in the child’s best interests. Local authorities must seek a child’s views throughout that transformative process. I hope the Committee can agree that the clause should stand part of the Bill.

[Ian Sollom]

I thank the Minister for her response. We have heard from across the Committee how much support there is for the principles of the clause. I hear what Government Members have said about the amendments not giving the relevant social workers and facilitators enough flexibility in their decision making. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham pointed out, there is a risk that without a stronger direction to include the child in those meetings, not enough emphasis will be placed on it. Amendment 36 would insert the words “should, where appropriate”, which leaves the decision in the hands of the local authority, but gives a stronger steer that, where possible, the child needs to be included. That is something that many child-centred charities would support. We will not withdraw the amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

[Ian Sollom]

I will withdraw it then, sorry; I was not clear on the process. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

[The Chair]

We are in the middle of a Division now.

[Ian Sollom]

Apologies.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Ian Sollom Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[Tom Hayes]

Q Before the election I visited Linwood school’s Charminster site, and I spoke to a young girl with support needs around SEND. She told me about a meeting with a new social worker, who asked her how her parent was. She had to tell the social worker that her parent had died. That is just one of many examples of social workers who pick up new cases and do not have time to read notes. We have constant churn, and we know some of the human cost. Can you speculate about or estimate some of the financial savings from reinvesting into a permanent workforce the money that would be spent on local agency social workers? How much would local councils benefit from this measure?

Andy Smith: An agency social worker costs around a third more than a social worker on the books of a local authority. You can extrapolate what that would look like from a team of eight or nine social workers to two or three times that. Financially, it is definitely a much better option than having an agency worker. That is not to say that agency social workers are bad—that is not what I am saying—because there could well be, and are, occasions when local authorities need to employ agency social workers to cover sickness or maternity leave, or where there is a particular pressure. But it should be an exception rather than the rule.

It is about creating the conditions that enable social workers to want to stay on the books of local authorities, as well as putting rules around it so that workers have sufficient training and development, and cannot move to agencies too quickly before they have had that breadth of experience. Ultimately, it would be cheaper to the public purse if we had fewer agency social workers and more social workers on the books. It would also be better for children in terms of consistency and stability, because we want to try to reduce the hand-offs and the churn in the workforce.

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

Q You have mentioned a couple of times the change with elective home education from philosophy to reasons around the provision in schools. Do you have thoughts on what accountability there should be for schools? Ofsted currently inspects the schools, and it does not look at reasons why children might not be in school electively. Is there some mechanism that you see around that?

[The Chair]

We have 30 seconds. We have to stick to the programme motion; I am sorry.

Ruth Stanier: We very much welcome the fact that the Government are now asking Ofsted to look specifically at inclusion. We think it is so important for precisely that reason.

--- Later in debate ---

[Patrick Spencer]

Q How do you see the role of local authorities with multi-academy trusts? Are they just replacing what was already going on?

Paul Whiteman: Unfortunately, local academy trusts looking outside their own boundary does not happen quite as often as we would like in terms of helping schools that are not part of their trust, unless they become formally part of it. What we need is more collaboration across all school types in local areas.

[Ian Sollom]

Q I think I am quoting you correctly in saying that academisation was not a silver bullet. Could you elaborate on the factors that are in play where it has not worked in particular areas?

Paul Whiteman: The data we look at shows quality schools and improvement outside the academy system as well as in the academy system. Where you get particular schools that are very difficult to broker, or have been re-brokered on a number of occasions, we need a different answer. I think it sits with the locality, and the local education networks and economy, to run to the aid of that school and try to improve it. I was also careful to say that my comments are not an attack on academies or the good work they do. It is about finding the answer for the individual school.

[Ian Sollom]

Q What is the difference with the maintained school if that is sitting quite isolated around other academies? It has not got that in-place support around it. How does that work effectively—is it better than re-brokering to another academy?

Paul Whiteman: For me, it is not necessarily about the legal status of the school. It is about the collaboration and support around that school from the rest of the education network and society around it. We have seen some really good work in the last few years in the north-east with the way it has been building those networks around schools that happen to be in trusts and schools that are not in a trust, and making sure that support is delivered. The provisions in the Bill mean that you could make different decisions about the school’s legal status and actually make sure the support is delivered in a way that works for that school.

[The Chair]

I thank our witnesses.

Examination of Witness

Jacky Tiotto gave evidence.