Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Liam Conlon Excerpts

Monday 1st December 2025 Westminster Hall

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Barker. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is an important piece of legislation for this Government. Among other things, it will drive higher standards in our schools, put more qualified teachers at the front of classrooms, bring down the cost of uniforms for families and create a new duty to establish multi-agency child protection teams. It is right that the Government are looking to implement the Bill, including all the measures around home educating.

I will talk about two things in particular: first, the provisions for children who find themselves between hospital, home and school; and secondly, home educating. I speak not only as an MP on behalf of constituents, but as someone with vast personal experience of educational interruption and learning in non-traditional settings. When I was 13, the day after we broke up for the summer holidays in year 8, I had a freak accident in which I shattered my right hip and did irreversible damage to my back. From that point on, I did not walk for four of my teenage years, and I did not have a full year at school from years 9 to 12. Instead I received a mixture of home education, teaching at the Royal London hospital in Whitechapel in east London and school. When I eventually did return to school, I went back a year, which was not a great experience and was a reminder of why people do not want to wind up in the year below.

I know that learning in non-traditional settings does not need to hold children back. There are challenges in delivery, despite the hard work that staff and parents put in, but these can be overcome. Having returned recently to the Royal London, I have seen the progress made in the provision of home education and education on the wards, overcoming many of these challenges. Children are now taught by a dedicated hospital school, with three onsite classrooms at the Royal London, strong provision of information and communication technology and partnerships with organisations such as the London Symphony Orchestra and the National Portrait Gallery.

This morning, before I came to Parliament, I had the pleasure of visiting the Bethlem Royal hospital in my constituency, which is the world’s oldest psychiatric institution, founded in 1247. It has a thriving hospital school that I have had the pleasure of visiting many times. I have also visited hospital schools at King’s and the Princess Royal University hospital, which serve my constituents.

I have raised this with the Minister before, and I know she is dedicated and committed to it: we must make sure we reflect the experiences of children who find themselves between multiple settings—hospital, school and home. Often, that can be done in parallel. I can remember being in hospital one week, at home the following week and in school the next. There are challenges in delivering that. However, I hope this Bill will reflect on that, and I know that Minister is very committed to that.

I also want to touch on the importance of home educated learning. Given my experience of home education at times, I have been pleased to engage with home educating families in my constituency. That has included individual surgeries with parents and a roundtable with parents and students during UK Parliament Week, which included dozens of families and children—I told Corin, Adelaide, Peter, Harper, Paige and Addison that I would mention them today. Addison is here in the Gallery today with his mother, Penny. During these interactions, parents, as well as children such as Addison, have carefully laid out their concerns with the Bill, including issues around the right to remove a child from school, what constitutes a “suitable education” under the Bill and the administrative burden that the Bill could place on parents. Today, I wish to bring those to the attention of the Minister.

First, under the Bill, removing a child from school would create a requirement for local authority consent before placing children in a special school or for those on a child protection plan to be removed from school. The local authority must consider the child’s best interests in that decision. Some children in special schools require complex, specialised care, and so it is right that local authorities ensure they would be best served by being home educated. However, parents are concerned about how local authorities, many of which are stretched thin and have let down parents before, will interpret this requirement. In Bromley, we have a Conservative-run council with some of the highest waiting lists for EHCPs in the country, and I can understand why parents who have tried to interact with that council before would have concerns about it having authority over whether they can remove their child from school.

My second point is on the definition of what constitutes a “suitable education”. The Bill requires local authorities to issue school attendance orders in cases where it appears that a child may not be receiving a suitable education. We know that children learn differently. Take Addison, my constituent here today. He is certainly learning through attending this debate, but his family may worry that activities such as this will not be classified as contributing towards a suitable education. That is a particular concern for some children with SEND, who may struggle to learn in a traditional setting but thrive in other contexts. Our approach to education and what we define as being suitable must account for this.

My final point on this Bill is its potential administrative burden, something I have raised previously in education oral questions—I thanked the schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for his reassurance then. Many parents worry that they will have to submit large volumes of data as a result of the Bill. The way the Bill requires data to be collected does not square with the realities of home education. Will the Minister reconfirm that it will not be a requirement of the Bill for families like Penny and Addison to report on things such as accounting for Scouts groups in the evening or football activities—things that we would not ask other families to do? I know that has been said in the House previously, but that reconfirmation would be great.

I would like to touch on solutions and conclusions, and I hope that the concerns I have raised will be taken into consideration. In particular, on all sides of the House we need to do a lot more work and thinking about how we support the tens of thousands of children who find themselves between hospital and school every single year, and the inequalities and disparities between some hospitals that have lots of resources—such as Great Ormond Street hospital, the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital and the Royal London, where I was—and other hospitals across the country.

It is also my belief that none of the issues with the Bill that I have raised today represent innate, fundamental flaws in its logic. Instead, they represent risks in the implementation. There are risks that I, as well as organisations representing SEND and home ed parents, believe can be mitigated through minor changes and strong statutory guidance that considers the concerns of parents. Importantly, the statutory guidance must account for the plethora of different situations that local authorities find themselves in when it comes to SEND, and the different approaches that they may attempt to take. If we are successful in doing this, we can ensure that all children are protected while properly preserving the rights of those who wish to home educate their children, such as those dedicated parents I have in my constituency.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you presiding, Ms Barker. This has been a good debate, and very good points have been made by hon. Members on all sides, including the hon. Member for Beckenham and Penge (Liam Conlon), who has just spoken. This is a rare and important opportunity to talk about the vital role of hospital schools.

I do not intend to go through every measure in this Bill in detail; we did that at Committee stage, and I took that opportunity to go through many of its measures then. However, I will make a few broad observations about it. First, there are things in this Bill that we like. There are things in this Bill that were in the Conservatives’ earlier Bill, and we should all welcome some of the moves on, for example, multi-agency safeguarding, the expansion of the role of virtual school heads, and so on. Let us be clear—and Ministers, I am sure, will not try to say this today—that if the Government say that they want to withdraw the Bill, it does not mean that they do not like any aspect in it. Ministers are in charge of the Parliamentary timetable and are perfectly capable of withdrawing a Bill, noting that it is nicely set out in discrete units, and coming back the next day or the next week with a better Bill that does not include the bad bits and but does include the good bits.

To be clear, there are many things in the Bill that it would be better to be rid of. It is, I am afraid, a mix of trying to fix problems that do not exist; some retail offers, at least one of which is set to backfire with significant long-term consequences; an over-invasive approach to parents exercising their right, and thereby often giving up a great deal personally, to home educate; and worst, an attack on the school freedoms that have underpinned the great performance improvements that we have seen in schools in England over the last decade.

Let us remind ourselves what that record is. Our primary school readers are now the best in the western world. At secondary, our performance has improved from 27th to 11th in maths and from 25th to 13th in reading. The attainment gap has narrowed, and children eligible for free school meals are now 50% more likely to go to university than they were in 2010. What drove that improvement? It was standards and quality; brilliant teachers with autonomy and accountability; a knowledge-rich curriculum and proven methods, such as synthetic phonics and maths mastery; and a system in which schools learned from schools, with a hub-and-spoke network for different subjects and disciplines. But most of all, it was about academy trusts, where schools could learn from one another.

We knew that that system would drive up standards only if it also ensured diversity and parental choice. People need clear information, which is why Ofsted reports are so important, and why Progress 8 replaced the previous, contextual value-added measure, as a much better way of measuring children’s progress at school. That choice is necessary, which is why academies and free schools were at the heart of our approach.

I am sad to say that, all the while, there was what statisticians call a natural experiment going on. While those reforms were being pursued in England, in other nations of the United Kingdom—in Scotland and particularly in Wales—they were not. If anybody doubts the benefit of these reforms, they have only to look at the comparative results of the different nations of the United Kingdom.

The Government have already stopped new free schools, and this Bill stops more schools getting academy freedoms and erodes the freedoms of existing academies. I have said that the Bill seeks to fix problems that do not exist, and there is no evidence that academies pay teachers less than other types of schools, yet we have these new rules on the statutory pay and conditions framework. There is no evidence that there are armies of unqualified teachers marching through our schools. The proportion of teachers in our schools who are not qualified today is 3.1%. Can you guess what it was in 2010, when the Government changed, Ms Barker? It was 3.2%. There are good reasons to have unqualified staff in school sometimes. Then there is the national curriculum. Schools are already obliged to follow a broad and balanced curriculum, and they get measured on that by Ofsted, yet we now have a requirement in primary legislation to slavishly follow the detail of the national curriculum in its entirety, thereby removing the opportunity for any innovation and differentiation.

Alongside that, the Government have abandoned the EBacc, they are unpicking Progress 8 and, in parallel, they have moved the standard-setting function in technical and vocational education from an independent institute to a body that was first inside the Department for Education and then, inexplicably, moved into the Department for Work and Pensions.

Will the Government meet their targets? Of course they will, because they are in charge of deciding what counts as meeting the target. We saw that the last time Labour were in government, with the famous “five or more GCSEs at grade C or above”. I counted 11 ways in which that statistic was massaged so that every year it looked like the results were getting better and better, when all the while we were tumbling down the international tables comparing attainment at school, and not only in the PISA results. The OECD survey of young adults’ skills looks at countries across the OECD, and we were the only country in that survey where the literacy and numeracy of young adults who had newly left school were worse than those of the generation about to retire.

At least at that time, the then new Labour Government talked about academic excellence. Now, such talk is out of fashion, because it is believed that striving for excellence is somehow elitist. It is not—striving for academic excellence in state schools is the very opposite of elitism. It is what allows children and people from ordinary families to get on a level playing field with those who are in the elite. I say to Ministers, “Please, please don’t undo the progress of the last decade and a half”—some of which, by the way, built on what their predecessors did in the new Labour Government.

[Liam Conlon]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Damian Hinds]

I am coming very close to the end of my speech, and I think Ms Barker would want me to continue to allow for more speakers.

[Damian Hinds]

In that case, I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

[Liam Conlon]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that what has not been conducive to education and preparing children for the best start in life, as I have heard from primary school teachers across my constituency, is the decimation of Sure Start, which provided children with the best start in life?

[Damian Hinds]

I am so pleased that the hon. Gentleman asked me about that, because it is one of the great slogans of his party. One of my favourite statistics, however—people can look it up; it is available in an official publication—is that there were more children’s centres open in this country when I was Secretary of State for Education than in any year that Tony Blair was Prime Minister. The fact is that from 2008 to 2010, under Gordon Brown, there was a massive explosion in the number of things called a “Sure Start centre”. Basically, people could go to any old building, stick a sign on it that said “Sure Start” with a rainbow, and that became a Sure Start centre.

The Education Committee, which is a non-partisan Committee of this House, conducted an inquiry in about 2011 or 2012 looking at Sure Start. We tried in chapter one to define what a Sure Start centre was, but we could not, because there was no actual design. One Sure Start centre that we visited had no children at all in it; some centres were fully fledged nurseries, family centres—you name it. There is very important work to be done with family hubs and other programmes. When we were in government, we made a huge increase in entitlements to early years education and childcare, which was a good thing to do.

Ms Barker, I said that I would finish shortly, and I will. I say to Ministers that they should please come back with a Bill that can achieve widespread support, but that does not include these damaging measures that will undermine and harm education and opportunity.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Conlon Excerpts

Monday 20th October 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

12. What steps she is taking to help increase the affordability of childcare.

[Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)]

17. What steps she is taking to help increase the affordability of childcare.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)]

As it is my first time at the Dispatch Box, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), and say what an honour it is to build on his work to give every child the best start in life.

This Government have delivered a record expansion of childcare, saving working parents £7,500 a year, and we are working with our fantastic private, voluntary, and independent sector and new school-based nurseries to ensure that this expanded provision reaches every eligible family.

[Liam Conlon]

I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her to her place. I recently had the pleasure of welcoming my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary to St Anthony’s Catholic primary school in Penge, where we saw preparations for the opening of its new school-based nursery. St Anthony’s is one of two schools in my constituency of Beckenham and Penge to be awarded money for school-based nurseries in the first round of funding, the other being Oak Lodge Primary in West Wickham. Does the Minister agree that school-based nurseries such as these are essential for providing the high-quality places we need and, crucially, for tackling early childhood inequalities and closing the attainment gap before children start school?

[Olivia Bailey]

I do agree with my hon. Friend, and I congratulate St Anthony’s and Oak Lodge, as well as my hon. Friend for being a tireless champion for his constituents. This Government have delivered 5,000 places at new school-based nurseries this year alone, with 7,000 more to come next September. I encourage Members across the House to get their local schools to apply for a phase 2 grant.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Can I say to those on the Front Bench that when I start coughing and shaking my head, I am trying to move you along, not indicating that you should carry on? I think I am getting my signals wrong.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

T8. I recently met dedicated parents from my constituency who choose to home-educate their children. They raised questions about duties on parents and providers to report details of their children’s education and recreational activities included in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Could the Minister reaffirm his support for home-education families and meet me, so that we can provide clarity for these parents?

[Josh MacAlister]

England is an international outlier by not requiring the registration of electively home-educated children, and we are remedying that with the Bill’s measures. Information on non-educational activities will not be required for inclusion in the registers. I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss this further.

Access to Sport: PE in Schools

Liam Conlon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Leigh Ingham) for securing this debate. She made some fantastic and profound points in her speech.

Like the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), I will focus on disability sports. In schools across the country, three in four disabled children do not take part in PE regularly, and four in 10 confide that they would like to take part in more sport if it was offered. We should not underestimate the impact this has on these children, with disabled children already facing exclusion and 72% of them reporting feeling lonely.

I know this from my own experience, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have not played sports since I was 13. I had an accident in year 8 where I shattered my hip; I did not walk for four years, and then had a hip replacement in sixth form. A challenge a lot of children who are disabled face in similar situations is that playing football and other sports is how children often build common bonds with their friends; it is what they do together and what they talk about. Being excluded from that has far wider repercussions.

This has been a big priority for me in my constituency. I pay tribute today to the work of ParalympicsGB, the Youth Sport Trust and others; they really recognise this and are doing lots of important local work to improve it. We have some fantastic projects and organisations in Beckenham and Penge that are using their own initiative to increase the participation of disabled people in sport. In Crystal Palace, the National Sports Centre is undergoing a multimillion-pound refurbishment to secure its facilities for future use and, crucially, to make them accessible. I think 19 world records have been set in Crystal Palace, but wheelchair users currently cannot get to the pools and a lot of the other facilities. As Members will know, this issue is close to my heart, and I am proud that this facility in my constituency will be made fully accessible and will be one of the best facilities not just in London but across the country for disabled sport going forward.

I want to put on the record my thanks to Sir Sadiq Khan, the team at the Greater London Authority, including project manager Ben Woods, and Councillors Ruth McGregor and Ryan Thompson, and to the Crystal Palace Sports Partnership, with John Powell and Fran Bernstein, who have really brought people together and made this happen.

Crystal Palace football club and the charity Palace for Life Foundation do genuinely incredible work right across south London, including at the National Sports Centre, to support disabled people and others. As part of this work, the foundation hosts football sessions for those with Down’s syndrome and visual impairments, as well as powerchair football.

One of the points that I often try to make to people is that, of all the protected characteristics defined by the Equality Act 2010, disability is by far the most diverse. We also talk of specific disabilities, such as autism and cerebral palsy, as having spectrums. The challenge for disabled sport is really comprehensive, but we have experts by experience—people with disabilities who understand how best to bridge that gap and make inclusion possible. It is fantastic that the Schools Minister has recognised this. I know that she has spoken about the need for increased PE in schools for disabled children. If I speak to some of the local schools in my constituency, I am told that having other facilities outside school is absolutely essential.

It would be remiss of me not also to mention Kent County Cricket Club in Beckenham, which, alongside managing two disability teams, runs a regular Friday night disability cricket session in Beckenham for children and young people. It has been fantastic to see a renewed focus on access to disability sport both in Government and in my local community, especially following the Paralympics. Increasing access to PE and sport is not something that will happen if we sit back and wait for it. Inclusion is not just an absence of exclusion, and achieving equity will require an active effort from all to get involved. I again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for securing this debate.

Adoption Breakdown

Liam Conlon Excerpts

Thursday 3rd April 2025 Commons Chamber

[Tom Gordon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, and I will come on to that important point later in my speech. A major challenge in tackling adoption breakdown is the lack of reliable data. We have little understanding of the true scale of the problem, making it hard to assess the effectiveness of current policies or plan for meaningful improvements. Local authorities, which are meant to provide support, frequently fail to help parents facing those significant challenges in raising children with complex needs, and that is worsened by the absence of clear, specific policies to prevent or respond to adoption breakdowns. There is an urgent need for better data.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

I have met a number of adoption charities and organisations in Beckenham and Penge, and they have told me that adoption breakdown can lead to significant emotional trauma for children and adoptive parents, and many other implications. Does he agree on the need to bring local authorities, Government and families together, first to try to prevent adoption breakdown, but then, where it occurs, to take action to support both parents and children?

[Tom Gordon]

The hon. Member raises an excellent point. That is exactly the case, and I have heard exactly those points from many adoption charities across the UK.

Our focus must also be on trying to make sure that there are clearer policies and improved support systems, and addressing the gaps is the only way to reduce adoption breakdowns and ensure that every child has the chance to grow up in a loving and stable environment. Our focus must shift to enhancing the support structures available to families post-adoption. While the current framework is well intentioned, it is insufficient. Raising adopted children is made more difficult by barriers to vital special educational needs and disability services and mental health support. Increased investment in services such as counselling, educational support and respite care could significantly improve outcomes.

The most recent Government research and data that I could find on adoption disruption dates back over a decade. It was the Department for Education’s “Beyond the Adoption Order” research paper published in 2014. The paper estimates a disruption rate of between 2% and 9%. Since then, there has been no significant follow-up or research, and if we are to address this issue, it is vital that we have that up-to-date information on disruptions to properly assess and respond to the challenges that parents face.

Currently, local authorities and regional adoption agencies record data inconsistently, creating an incomplete picture of the national situation. The Department for Education reports that 170 children entered local authority care after being adopted in the year to 31 March 2024, averaging 0.2 adoptions per constituency. However, I am aware that three adoptions broke down in my constituency of Harrogate and Knaresborough in the same time period, so the data is clearly patchy. The discrepancies highlight significant gaps in our understanding of the prevalence of breakdown. How can the Government possibly expect to adequately support those affected, when they do not fully understand and comprehend the extent of the issue?

In speaking to adoptive parents—regardless of whether they face disruption or not—a clear theme emerges: support often vanishes once the adoption order is signed.

Looked After Children (Distance Placements) Bill

Liam Conlon Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 28th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a particular problem in the south-west—his part of the country—and in his constituency, which he represents so ably. In fact, there are some care leavers with that experience in the Public Gallery who are from that part of the world. There are particular issues there.

My Bill does not seek to overhaul the care system or burden already stretched local authorities. It sets out three clear practical measures. First, it would place a statutory duty on local authorities to collect and publish data on distant placements—specifically, how many children are placed more than 20 miles from home, and how many have been moved in the past year due to a lack of suitable local provision. Secondly, it would require every local authority in England to produce an annual local sufficiency plan, which is a clear, forward-looking strategy setting out how they will meet their duty under section 22G of the Children Act 1989 to secure sufficient accommodation in their area. Thirdly, it would introduce a duty on the Secretary of State for Education to publish a national sufficiency plan after each financial year. That strategy must bring together the data collected from local authorities, and set out what action the Government are taking to support councils in meeting their duties.

That, in my mind, is a sensible, common-sense approach. This Government clearly take their responsibilities in this area seriously, but future Governments may not. This initiative will keep their feet to the fire. Together, those three provisions introduce something that our current system clearly lacks: clarity, co-ordination and accountability. The Bill does not ban distant placements. It rightly makes space for cases where distance is necessary, whether for safety, for therapeutic care or for stability. There needs to be flexibility in the system.

I am pleased to be joined in the Gallery today by Georgia and Kane, two care-experienced young people whose courage and insight continues to shape this debate. In fact, this Bill would not be before the House if it were not for them and many of their friends and colleagues who have campaigned so passionately on this issue. Their stories are vital, because behind every placement statistic, every sufficiency plan and every consultation document, there are real lives shaped by the decisions that the Government make and that we make in this place.

Kane, at just 16 years old, was moved from his foster home near Kingsteignton to supported accommodation far away in Exmouth. The move separated him from his twin sister and left him feeling alone and invisible. Georgia’s journey meant that she moved multiple times while in care and spent extended periods in mental health hospitals as a teenager, often far from home. She recently told the Education Committee how she had to be declared homeless in order to access the support she needed near to her networks. She described a kinship placement that offered love, stability and safety, but that broke down because her carers received no formal support. She was left navigating high-risk supported accommodation alone, often living alongside people experiencing exploitation and with serious mental health needs, all while trying to complete her A-levels.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend welcome the Government’s important changes, including the support from local authorities, for kinship carers, such as those I met in Beckenham and Penge?

[Jake Richards]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I know that the Government and the Minister take kinship carers and the care system very seriously, and the Government have introduced a number of measures already. That is very welcome in their first 12 months—it emphasises just how seriously they take these matters—and it is part of the strategy of solving this problem of distance placements. When children can stay in the family, they should.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liam Conlon Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)]

That sounds like a lot of fun, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for participating. When it comes to supporting what we know are brilliant projects, local authorities are increasingly challenged as a result of the funding deficit that the previous Government left them, but I am sure they are keen to support those projects. We will work with local authorities on a continuous basis to ensure that children with special educational needs and disabilities get the opportunities they deserve.

[Liam Conlon (Beckenham and Penge) (Lab)]

T5. A new report by London Councils predicts a collective decline in demand for reception and year 7 places over the next five years, causing concern about the impact on school standards and pupil attainment. Will the Minister meet me to discuss this important issue?

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Government are working closely with local authorities to ensure that consideration is given to all options for utilising space, whether that is for early years provision or SEND provision, including merging provision where that is in the best interests of the community, and we will continue to do so. I or the early years Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the proposals.