Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Lord Blunkett Excerpts

Tuesday 20th May 2025 Lords Chamber

I understand why the Start for Life offer has to be tightly drawn for local authorities, with far more patchy provision. However, where local authorities have pioneered good practice and blazed an innovative trail for other councils that has proven successful, they should not have to conform to a one-size-fits-all approach. I understand that a level of standardisation is essential to get timely scale-up of new approaches. What used to be known as the troubled families programme began in quite a clunky way, which attracted a lot of criticism, but it would never have got off the ground without tight controls around payment by results. However, a sizeable chunk of its success lay in its operation becoming more flexible for well-performing local authorities. The ability to gain earned autonomy from the strictures of payment by results gave local authorities lump sums to spend on early intervention and helped to float a fleet of family hubs. Deploying a similar approach with councils whose family hubs are being hampered in delivering excellence by command and control from the centre could similarly help greatly with progress of the whole national programme. Hence I will likely table amendments later in this Bill that would give councils earned autonomy in how they design and deploy family hubs.

[Lord Blunkett (Lab)]

My Lords, we have heard some highly respected voices this afternoon, and I want to put two or three things on the record.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly draws attention to the fact that this kind of clause is now becoming commonplace at the beginning of Committees on Bills. I understand why people might want to raise specific issues, or even flag the amendments that they want to move in Committee, but if we prolong this stage to the point where our debates lose their purpose or we go on into the night—when, frankly, it is impossible to have rational and sensible debate—we will lose the purpose of the Committee itself.

I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who I respect as a friend, said about Second Reading. I was frustrated to have only four minutes, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was deeply frustrated because she was trying to get back to Britain and could not. But we cannot have Second Reading debates at the beginning of every Committee.

I make an appeal. I have amendments down, and I understand that we need to listen and learn. On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister did just that, and listened to what I and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others from outside this House, were saying. There is a willingness to listen and reflect and to believe that we do not get things right the first time. There is real wisdom and experience in this House and beyond that can be brought to bear, and we can change the Bill and have a better result at the end of it. But, to pick up what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, we will do so only if we respect each other, with no calling out of people due to ill will, and if Ministers are committed to working with us. That is the role of our House. Over the 10 years I have been here, I have understood, in a very clear way, how different it is from the House of Commons. If we are able to listen to each other, take well-meant amendments and see how we can provide a better outcome for all, so much the better for this House.

The respect of this House is really important. I have never understood why, recently, those who are most committed to this kind of second Chamber go about undermining it. I did not understand when that happened on the Football Governance Bill and other Bills—this one is in danger of going the same way—where we prolonged debate rather than concentrating and focusing on improvement.

The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, is quite right—I am in favour of what he is saying, and of bringing back the old local Sure Start programmes. We will be able to debate that on amendments being put down. I would like to pick up the issue of what Part 2 is about. I think it is about raising standards, opportunity and life chances for all children, not just those who can jump through particular hoops. We touched on this with the 80 people who spoke on Second Reading. Let us try to get through Committee stage and to Report. At the end of it, let us all believe, whatever part of the House we are from—there should be no “sides”—that we have done a good job in making this Bill better.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, I sat through almost all the Second Reading but deliberately did not intervene in it because I was trying to ascertain how much of the Bill was to do with Wales and how much was not. In the context of her amendment, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to clarify subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause, where it says, and I select the words deliberately,

“improve … standards … in schools in … Wales”.

Education in Wales is a totally devolved subject. I know that the Welsh Government and the Senedd have asked for certain provisions to be made via the Bill for application to Wales. I am sure the Minister can confirm that. Those are specific provisions that have been asked for and not a matter of generality. As I read the proposed new clause, there is a suggestion that it applies to the generality of standards in schools in Wales. The noble Baroness spoke of autonomy and accountability. That goes to the heart of the administration and provision of education in Wales, which is a devolved matter, and we must be clear in our minds why we are choosing those words.

Clearly, the term “England and Wales” can arise quite rightly when we are talking about the jurisdiction or the legal aspects of it. But here we are talking about the administration of education. Specifically, we are talking about schools and schools in Wales, and the Senedd has the right to know to what extent amendments such as this are meant to apply to them.