Education, Health and Care Plans

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 22nd January 2025 Westminster Hall

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) on securing this important debate.

Parliament has had a number of debates on SEND since the general election, and every one I have attended has been a blockbuster—an absolute sell-out, with people struggling to get in. I say to the Minister that that is a testament to the fact that pretty much every Member—this is why I am so shocked that there are no Conservative Back Benchers present—has an inbox full of heartbreaking stories of families up and down the country who are trying to access the support that they deserve and need. These are some of the most vulnerable children in our society, and it is incumbent on us to ensure that they get the support they need.

Today’s debate is specifically about education, health and care plans, which were introduced in 2014. The vision behind them was to bring health and care together into one plan that would follow the child up to the age of 25, while being regularly renewed and updated. It would set out the support needed and provide assurances to the parents and the pupil involved. However, as we know far too well—we have heard the stats today—the system has become overwhelmed, demand has soared and resourcing has not kept up with that demand. The whole system is creaking at the seams.

For too many children with SEND, as well as their parents and carers, just managing to get an EHCP will feel like a significant victory. Their families fight their corner, knowing that without an EHCP, the support their child needs will not materialise. However, even when an EHCP is granted, it is not always a guarantee of support. Certainly in my casework, the issue is less about the waiting times and much more about the delivery of what is laid out in the plans. That is partly because of the severe shortage of special school places across the country. The previous Conservative Government promised a number of additional special schools, but they were very slow to deliver them. I welcome the measures in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill that will allow local authorities to open special schools where there is need. A number of local authority applications have been rejected in recent years.

In the meantime, without specialist provision, the cost of transporting children well out of area to appropriate provision, or sending children to independent special schools, some of which are private equity run and profiteering at local authorities’ expense, is shocking. A number of children with special needs are missing from school because their needs are not being met.

We have heard so much today about the delays, fights and conflict. Parents should not have to go through that process and the stress and strain that it causes them. It is unacceptable that almost every EHCP appeal that goes to tribunal is decided in favour of the appellant. Parents are carrying the cost and stress of that battle and local authorities are spending further millions losing those cases.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) talked about the impact of delays on school staff, as well as on parents. When I speak to school governors, headteachers and teachers in my constituency, I hear time and again that while children who perhaps should be in a different setting are waiting for an EHCP in a mainstream setting, sometimes their behaviour causes safeguarding issues for other children. Sometimes teachers, teaching assistants or learning support assistants are injured in the process, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Learning support assistants are paid a very low salary, and they are often driven out of the profession.

Some of the delays, as a number of hon. Members have commented, are caused by a shortage of educational psychologists. Talking to my local authority, I also hear that sometimes the delays from its side are because of a lack of co-operation from NHS partners. I support new clause 3 to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford tabled to ensure transparency on local authorities’ timeliness with EHCPs. I urge the Government to go one step further and say that, where there are breaches, we need an explanation; we need transparency on where delays are being caused, because we know that sunlight is the best disinfectant. We must put pressure on all partners in the system to keep to their responsibilities and ensure that every child gets an EHCP in a timely manner.

We have heard in this debate that this waiting game is a real postcode lottery. Some local authorities perform reasonably well against the 20-week limit, but we have heard that in Surrey, just 16% of EHCPs were issued on time in 2023, and that in Essex it is less than 1%. That is shocking. We have heard time and again that the system is failing and needs urgent whole-system reform. That reform must include addressing the financial barriers and disincentives that prevent children from being identified, included and supported without having to fight for it.

That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for increased funding for local authorities to reduce the notional amount that schools are expected to pay towards supporting a child with special needs before applying for an EHCP. That would be an important step, because too often I hear from headteachers in my constituency who are trying to do the right thing that parents have come to them because someone from a school down the road has whispered in their ear, “Well actually, if you go to that school, they are much better at delivering for SEND children.” That comes down to the fact that so much of the support needs to be delivered out of schools’ budgets, because we know that the £6,000 threshold is only notional. We need to address that disincentive in the system.

The Minister was disagreeing when my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that school budgets are being strained further still by teacher pay rises having to be found out of efficiencies. The Secretary of State has written to the School Teachers Review Body saying that pay rises will need to be found out of school efficiencies. I can tell the Minister—she has met some of the school governors in my constituency—that our schools do not have any efficiencies left. Our schools are asking parents to buy glue sticks, they are cutting teaching assistant posts, which is affecting special needs provision, and they are cutting school trips. They have cut, cut, cut, so there is no fat in the system. If her vision is to make our mainstream schools more inclusive, that has to come with the financial support to deliver it, and delivering teacher pay rises out of those budgets is just not possible. I hope she will address that point.

I urge the Government to consider establishing a national body for children with very high needs, so that we do not have a postcode lottery in which, if there is a particularly high needs child in one local authority, their budget is put under significant strain. We need a dedicated national body for those children. We also need to improve early identification through better training of staff. Early identification needs to start right down at the early years, not late in primary school or even secondary school, as we often find.

I have one last point to make to the Minister: we must provide clarity to local authorities. We know from the National Audit Office report that the finances of 43% of them are on the brink. A £3.3 billion deficit is projected. The £1 billion announced in the Budget is welcome. We have still not heard how that will be allocated. It will not even touch the sides of the black hole I have just mentioned. We know that the statutory override—an accounting trick that allows local authorities to keep their SEND deficits off the balance sheet—is due to end in 2026, but we do not know what will happen after that. Perhaps the Minister can provide some clarity on that.

As I said, the Minister met some of my school governors, and we are very grateful to her for that time. We discussed mainly the SEND issues that they are experiencing. I know that this is high on her list of issues to tackle, but I say to her again that this issue is urgent. There is nothing really in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to tackle this issue. We need whole-system reform. Our children cannot afford to wait.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (First sitting)

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

My main objective is to try to get all the Back Benchers in, so we want crisp questions. It is very important that everybody feels they can get in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Q You have both referred to wellbeing. The Bill is called the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but there is precious little in it on wellbeing. Other than measurement and making sure that children’s voices are at the forefront, what more can we be pressing the Government for on wellbeing in the Bill?

Anne Longfield: There are some very well-established wellbeing measures, such as Be Well, operating in many areas. They are cost-effective and demonstrate what can be achieved with better understanding and information about children’s needs. We will potentially have the unique identifier, which is important within that. Overall, the wellbeing measure would seek to identify which children were vulnerable, which were happy and thriving within their community and school, and which were in need of early help, especially around mental health and other support. It would enable services to understand where they needed to prioritise their resources. You cannot prioritise your response to children’s needs unless you know which children are in need. As I say, it would create the engine for many of the outcomes that the Bill is seeking to deliver.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Dr Homden, you have talked about the lack of provision for children with special educational needs. What do you make of the power in the Bill for local authorities to refuse parents the right to withdraw their children from a special school to home educate if they do not feel that the special school is meeting their children’s needs?

Dr Homden: That is a really complex area to consider because of the circumstances of individual children such as my own child, who was not withdrawn from school but had no available provision for two years of his school life despite being fully known and documented. I sympathise with parents who feel that the risks facing their child in a setting, as well as out of a setting, might lead them to that position. I sympathise strongly with the driver within the Bill, but much more consideration needs to be given to that question because of the lack of provision. At Coram children’s legal centre, we are constantly representing parents where there is significant failure to fulfil the education, health and care plan, which is a child’s right and entitlement.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Q Anne, you said that family group decision making can be fantastic if done well. What are your thoughts about how prescriptive the statutory guidance should be on the format of those family group decision meetings?

Anne Longfield: It has to be. If this is to be the cornerstone of our ability to move towards a kinship model, intervene earlier and get alongside families, it has to work properly. All the evidence is based on a full family group conferencing system. Of course, you would want to take any opportunity to work around families, but this is about planning, being there at the right time and having the involvement of children and families. That is not something that local authorities themselves can decide on.

It is also about the commitment to do something with it. Without that, it could just be a meeting with families, which would be an absolute missed opportunity. I am not a specialist in this; I went along and found family group conferencing about 12 or 15 years ago. I used to call them magic meetings. Out of nowhere came solutions that changed people’s lives. I do not want to become too enthused, but it has to be done right, and the principles need to be seen through.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

Q How do local authorities currently discharge their duty to ensure that children receive a suitable education? What impact will the measures in the Bill have on this?

Ruth Stanier: We very much support the new duty to co-operate across councils and all schools. It is something we have long been calling for. Of course, councils continue to have duties to ensure that there is appropriate education for every child in local places. Having the statutory underpinning set out in the Bill on co-operation across all schools is so important, particularly when we are thinking about councils’ duties in respect of SEND, where the system is under enormous strain, as was illustrated by an important report we commissioned jointly with the county councils network last year. We very much welcome those measures in the Bill.

Andy Smith: The education system in England is increasingly fragmented and lacks coherence. We see the role of the local authority essentially eroded, even though our duties have not changed that much. The measures in the Bill will be helpful in trying to bring some of that coherence back and in recognising the role of the local authority on directing academies, school place planning and admissions. The current system works for some children but not all. Trying to rebalance that is a positive step forward.

[Munira Wilson]

Q The register of children not in school is supported by many parties and organisations, but under clause 25 a huge amount of detailed information will be requested of parents. In your professional view, Andy, do you think your directors of children’s services need all this information to safeguard children? If so, why?

Andy Smith: ADCS has long argued for a register of electively home educated children. For several years we carried out a survey ahead of this information being collected by the Department. We know that the number of children being electively home educated has increased exponentially, particularly since the pandemic. We need to be really clear that the measures, in themselves, will not protect children or keep them safe. The child protection powers are welcome, but we need to think about the capacity and resource that will be required to visit children in their homes and the training that will be required for staff who are going out doing visiting so that they can tune into issues around safeguarding and general wellbeing.

The measures in the Bill are certainly very detailed in terms of what is contained in a register, and there may be some reflection on whether there needs to be such a level of detail captured. That in itself is not going to keep children safe.

There is also some reflection about the relationship that local authorities have with parents, because the reasons why children are being electively home educated have shifted. We have moved away from the kind of philosophical reasons why parents might decide to home educate. Often, children are being home educated because of bullying, because of mental health challenges, or because their parents are being encouraged by schools to electively home educate.

We are also seeing an increasing proportion of children with SEND who are being electively home educated because parents are not getting the provision that they want—it is not available—or because of the tribunal processes. The kind of relationship that local authorities have with parents in that SEND context is quite challenging, and yet the local authority will be going in to the family home, with an officer asking lots of questions about the nature of that education. I think there is some reflection around the detail.

Local authorities need much clearer guidance on what a good elective home education offer looks like so that there is greater consistency across the across the piece. At the moment, we just have not got that because we are talking about very old legislation.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Ruth, the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to implement, if necessary, profit capping on private providers of children’s care homes and fostering agencies. It is very clear that there is a huge amount of profiteering. Do you think that is the right way to go about tackling the issue, and what could it mean for sufficiency of places?

Ruth Stanier: We very strongly support those measures in the Bill, and we have been calling for them for some time. Just creating the powers sends such an important signal to the market in and of itself, but should it not have the desired impact, we hope the Department will go on to put regulations in place. The level of costs has just spiralled out of control, leaving councils in an absolutely impossible situation, so it is excellent that these measures are being brought forward.

We very much welcome the measures in the Bill to put in place greater oversight of providers, because clearly there is that risk of collapse, which could have catastrophic impacts on children in those placements. This will not solve the problems with sufficiency in the number of placements, and we continue to work closely with the Department on measures to tackle that.

[Amanda Martin]

Q With your experiences in mind, do you think it is right that local authorities that want to open new schools can currently only seek proposals for academies? Under the Bill, they will be able to invite proposals for other types of school. What implications do you think that will have for pupils?

Ruth Stanier: We very much welcome this measure, which we have long called for. Councils continue to have the duty to ensure that places are available for all local children, and having the flexibility to bring forward new maintained schools, where that is appropriate, is clearly helpful.

Andy Smith: ADCS’s view is that the education system must absolutely be rooted in place, and directors of children’s services and local officers know their places really well. The measures in the Bill around direction of academy schools are a welcome addition. The end to the legal presumption that new schools will become academies, and allowing proposals from local authorities and others, is very welcome. Local authorities understand planning really well, and they understand their place and their children really well. I think that will ultimately be better for children.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q Great. From your experience, do you think it is important that a school’s individual circumstances are taken into account when you are determining the best and appropriate action to drive school improvement where a school may be under--performing, such as whether it is a maintained school? Do you consider that conversion to an academy by default might not always be in the best interests of every school and the children within it?

Paul Whiteman: It is important to preface my answer by saying that the success of academies can be seen, and the improvement is very real, but it is not always the only way to improve schools. We have held that belief for a very long time. With the extent to which we rely on data to support one argument or the other—of course, it has been the only option for so very long, and the data is self-serving in that respect.

Academisation is not always a silver bullet, and does not always work according to the locality, status or circumstances of the school. We absolutely think that different options are available. The introduction of the Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence teams to offer different support and different ways of support is to be welcomed to see if that is better. Academisation has not always been a silver bullet, but it is really important to preface by saying that that is not an attack on the academy system—there are very good academies and there are excellent local authority maintained schools as well, and we should make sure that we pick the right option for the schooling difficulty.

Julie McCulloch: I would start in the same place. It is important to recognise the extent to which the expertise and capacity to improve schools does now sit within multi-academy trusts—not exclusively, but that is where a lot of that capacity sits at the moment. It is important to make sure that we do not do anything that undermines that, but our long-standing position is that accountability measures should not lead to automatic consequences, and that there does need to be a nuanced conversation on a case-by-case basis about the best way to help a struggling school to improve, which we welcome. There are some challenges. I think some members have raised some questions about whether that slows down a process to the detriment of the children and young people in those schools who most need support; clearly that would not be a good place to find ourselves. However, in principle that sort of nuance is welcome.

Paul Whiteman: It is worth adding that we do have examples of schools that are in difficult circumstances where an academy chain cannot be found to accept them, because the challenge is too difficult for an academy to really want to get hold of them.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Leaving aside the register, looking at the schools part of the Bill—and knowing the challenges your members up and down the country face—do you think it has the right priorities in terms of the issues we need to be tackling across schools and colleges?

Julie McCulloch: I think it has some important priorities, and the ones you highlighted are first among them—the register, for example. There are certainly other issues that our members would raise with us as being burning platforms at the moment. SEND is absolutely top of that list, with recruitment and retention close behind, and probably accountability third. Those are the three issues that our members raise as the biggest challenges. There are some really important measures in the Bill that talk to some of those concerns. Certainly, there are some things in the Bill that might help with recruitment and retention. But it is fair to reflect the fact that our members are keen to quickly see more work around some of those burning platforms.

[Munira Wilson]

Q You mention recruitment and retention as a key issue—we know that it is a massive issue —yet in a previous answer you said you were concerned that the qualified teacher status changes might reduce supply. In your professional judgment, what impact might the QTS measures and the constraints on pay and conditions have on recruitment and retention? What is it that you think will be beneficial for R&R?

Julie McCulloch: I think there are two different questions there. On the QTS measure, I think it is about recognising the acute situation that we are in, and that in some circumstances our members are saying that they have a good member of staff delivering teaching who does not have QTS but is maybe working towards it. There is some devil in the detail there about where exemptions might be, and how working towards QTS might work.

On the changes around applying the school teachers’ pay and conditions document to academies as well as maintained schools, if the way we understand that measure is right, we think it will help with recruitment and retention—if it is about a floor, not a ceiling. We are not entirely convinced that that is how the Bill is worded at the moment, but if that is the intention and how it plays out, we think that is helpful.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Obviously, breakfast clubs are for primary schools, but hunger does not end at 11. Do either of you think that we should be extending provision of free school meals right up to 18?

Paul Whiteman: May I add something in response to your first question, and then deal with your second question? In terms of QTS, we agree with what Julia said, but would add that it is a legitimate expectation of pupils and parents that they are taught by someone who is qualified to do so. Therefore, the provisions in the Bill meaning that people travel towards becoming qualified teachers are very important. That necessity has a marginal impact on recruitment and retention, frankly.

Recruitment and retention is so much more than the flexibilities that may or may not be allowed to academy chains under pay and conditions. Those are sparingly and judiciously used at the moment—we have no objection to how they have been used so far. But those flexibilities have a marginal impact. What affects recruitment and retention is more around workload stress, the stress of accountability, and flexibility within employment, rather than those flexibilities.

[Neil O'Brien]

Q A quick question for Julie. You said it was not clear whether the Bill currently delivers a floor, not a ceiling. Would you welcome it if we all passed an amendment to make that very clear?

Julie McCulloch: Yes.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

Q That is really helpful. On kinship then, you will be familiar with the independent review of children in social care and the recommendations around kinship carers receiving greater recognition and support. There are obviously a number of measures in the Bill in that regard. What impact do you think the Bill will have on kinship care and those who care for those in kinship?

Jacky Tiotto: I think it is fantastic to be acknowledging those people who often give up a big chunk of their lives to look after those children. Formalising the offer for them is a no-brainer, really. At CAFCASS, we clearly will be involved in assessing some of those carers if they have come into proceedings and have been named through the proceedings. We will be assessing them as we do special guardians now, so all to the good.

[Munira Wilson]

Q CAFCASS seeks to make sure that decisions are made in the best interests of the child, and that the child is heard. How child-centred do you think the legislation is as drafted, in particular with regards to family group decision making?

Jacky Tiotto: Yes, I was thinking about that on the way here. The intention to be child-centred is great, but there is confusion. Look at the advice that exists now, say, from the Ministry of Justice about the meeting you would have in pre-proceedings about removal of your children: it is not to bring your children because you would be in a meeting where something scary would be being discussed. You can understand that advice. Now, perhaps the week before, we may have a family group decision making where the plan is to encourage children to come. I think that more thought needs to be given to how children will experience family group decision making.

To the point about it being earlier, I think a very special provision should be drafted about the need to seek children’s views and present them in that meeting. Whether they come or not is a matter for local authorities to decide, but, very critically, the adult voices will become the loudest if the children do not present a view.

[Munira Wilson]

Q The Bill as drafted says that the child “may” attend a meeting if the local authority deems it appropriate. Would you agree with me that it should be the default that the child should attend unless the local authority thinks it inappropriate?

Jacky Tiotto: Yes, but with care.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Absolutely. Could I follow up on the Minister’s question on kinship? You say you support relatives being involved in looking after children. It is great that a local offer is going to be published by every local authority, but every local authority has a different offer, frankly. What more do we think we could be doing to ensure that more kinship carers can step up and support children who would otherwise end up in local authority care?

Jacky Tiotto: Well, I think we have to go back to the needs of the children, and they are pretty significant. In large part, when a local authority becomes involved on behalf of the state, they are worried: there will be matters of children not going to school, or them being at risk of criminal or sexual exploitation. There will be some quite serious issues in their lives if they are older children; if they are younger children, not so much so, but nevertheless the kinship carer’s life will not continue in the way it had before, in terms of their ability to work, maybe, or where they live.

We know that local authorities are under huge resource pressure, so there is going to have to be something a bit stronger to encourage people to become carers, whether that is related to housing or the cost of looking after those children. People will want to do the right thing, but if you already have three kids of your own that becomes tricky. It has to be about resource and support—not just financial support, but access to much better mental health support for those children and the carers.

[Amanda Martin]

Q I want to take a step back from where you would be involved. What do you think the impact will be of creating the duty of safeguarding partnership to make arrangements to establish a multi-agency child protection team?

Jacky Tiotto: It is a long way back from us, but I was a director of children’s services before this and we were always clamouring to have a much more formal arrangement with the police and with health, so this is a fantastic opportunity to get that resourced and to put child protection formally back on the platform where it was, which is multi-agency. We have “Working Together”, which is the best multi-agency guidance in the world, but it has been hard to express without mandation. So thumbs up!

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Second sitting)

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 21st January 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)]

Q Dame Rachel, thank you for giving evidence to the Committee today. Returning to the benefits of the Bill, can you explain what you think the benefits of introducing a single unique identifier will be to the safeguarding of all children?

Dame Rachel de Souza: Yes. Before I do, I want to praise the fact that the children’s bit of the Bill really listens to children, because it has tried to do that. I want the schools bit to do the same. Since Minister Morgan is asking the question, I will say that he was the first person to speak to my ambassadors and actually try to take on board their views. That is important for all of us—we need to hear from children all the time.

I have been obsessed with the unique identifier from the second I got into my role. I do not need to spell out why—well, maybe I do. In my first couple of weeks in the role, I visited a violence reduction unit—a police crime reduction unit—in Bedfordshire, and it had a spreadsheet of children that were on nobody’s roll. They were not on any GP system or school roll; they were known by nobody. We cannot, in this century, with the tech capacity we have, find ourselves in that position.

I spoke to Professor Jay yesterday about the terrible abuse of young girls that has been going on and what to do about it. Do you know what she told me? She told me that one local area she was working with had a massive increase in sexually transmitted diseases in girls aged 13 and 14, but the health authority would not share the data with the police, under a completely misguided view about data sharing. My view is that we must invest in a unique identifier. Had Sara Sharif’s social workers had a unique identifier, they would have had the information and tech to know from other authorities she had been in that she was a child known to social services. The school would have known. Children, particularly vulnerable children, think we already know their stories. They think that we, the adults, are already talking to each other. For children, that is just how they think it should be—the adults who care for them should know.

Let me be clear, and be under no illusion: the parlous state of data systems means that the unique identifier will be a huge job. However, I am so pleased to see it committed to in the Bill. If there is one thing I would like to see before my term ends in the next couple of years, it is the unique identifier on the way. It will underpin so many things that we want in education, in child protection, in gluing the systems together and in the multi-agency work, so absolutely, we need it.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Q Dame Rachel, you said that you are meant to be the voice of children. I know you have made it your mission, through your various reports and surveys, to make sure that you amplify the voices of children. To what extent do you think their priorities and concerns are reflected in the Bill, and what more could we be doing to reflect them?

Dame Rachel de Souza: On the children’s social care side, I can absolutely assure you that vulnerable children’s voices have been taken through. On deprivation of liberty orders, I did research with children deprived of their liberty and took their voices through. On many of the multi-agency points, and lots of other things, their voices have gone through.

We have an opportunity to take children’s voices through on the schools side, but I do not think it has been done. I have had a million responses from school-aged children about what they want from their schools. The top things that they tell me they want are to study and to have a curriculum that they are really interested in and motivated by. They know they have to do the core, but they want all those things that they are really interested by in there too. They also want proper mental health support. There has been a tsunami of mental health concerns since lockdown, and that is why we need our LAs and CAMHS and everyone working together.

On SEND, the cri de coeur from children is, “I want to succeed and I will roll my sleeves up and work hard, but I need the support—support, support, support.” The children with special educational needs who feel their needs are met in school have told me—I did a snapshot of 95,000 of them—that they are happier in their schools than the rest of the cohort, but the ones who think their needs are not being met are unhappy. They also want to know about adult life and have deep concerns about wanting better relationships and sex education that is relevant and teaches them how to be better adults. They also want to know about the workplace. They are incredibly teleological. I would have loved it if they had all wanted to learn Dickens, but, no, they want to know how to get great jobs and what to do. They are very ambitious.

Damian Hinds saw a group of students with me to discuss what they wanted from the curriculum. We need to do more of that. We need to get their voices. We have a period of time now when we can get their voices and concerns through, and we should do it.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Coming back to child protection, you mentioned Professor Jay, whom I also met last week. The unique identifier will help with data sharing if we can get the systems right, but she also felt that a child protection agency that had national standards for lots of bodies and made sure that children did not fall through the gaps was really important. The Bill does not include that. Would you support such a measure?

Dame Rachel de Souza: What I said to her yesterday was, “Stop thinking of it like the Health and Safety Executive and start thinking of it like the National Crime Agency.” I think there is a debate to be had about whether we should do it. Look, my job came in 20 years ago when Victoria Climbié was brutally murdered by those who should have loved her most. Nobody murdered her but them, but the agencies around her did not talk. Every time a child dies, we give exactly the same set of recommendations, including better multi-agency working and better join-up, yet time and again—Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Sara Sharif—we find ourselves saying the same things.

The positive in that idea is having some way of making sure that social care and the other agencies really work together. The unique identifier is building the architecture to do it. The solution is either something like that, or we need our agencies to be working far more closely around children and to make multi-agency a reality.

I read every single report of a child who is killed—mainly in the home—and all the horrific things we are reading at the moment about girls and the so-called grooming gangs, and we know that the multi-agency piece is not working. Professor Jay’s idea should be considered—it would need to have teeth—but I am also open to other ways of doing that.

[The Chair]

Several Members want to be called. I cannot call everybody.

Dame Rachel de Souza: I will try to be brief.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q You have already set out the impact that the Bill will have on Ofsted’s powers. I imagine that you spend a large proportion of your time worrying about the most vulnerable children in society. What do you think will be the impact of the Bill on those children who are most in need?

Sir Martyn Oliver: Our top priority is the most disadvantaged and vulnerable. The ability to look at illegal or unregistered settings, unregistered children’s homes and illegal schools is hugely important. When they are out of Ofsted’s line of sight, it causes us great concern. I think that this Bill or a future Bill could go further and look at unregistered alternative provision, because all children educated anywhere for the majority of their time should be in sight of the inspectorate or a regulator. I do think that we will see significant issues with addressing the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, especially in part 1, on children’s social care.

[Munira Wilson]

Q You talked about the additional powers that you are being given, and you mentioned AP as an area where you would like it to go further. Is there anywhere else where you would like it to go further? Importantly, do you feel that Ofsted has the capacity and capability to deliver on all this? When I talk to local government, I often hear that there are quite a lot of delays with Ofsted.

Sir Martyn Oliver: We think that there are grey areas where the legislation will help us get it right, but we do think that we can go further. For example, the feasibility and administrative costs of carrying out searches of illegal schools and the requirement of getting a warrant would be very burdensome for Ofsted, and we will need additional resource to manage that. It is massively important. We will always use those powers proportionately and with care. For example, in a commercial setting, the ability to have different powers that allow us to search without a warrant would be far more reasonable. Obviously, in a domestic setting, I would expect safeguarding measures to be in place and to require a warrant, because forcing an entry into somebody’s private home is entirely different from doing so in a commercial premises. There are resources there, but I am assured that my team, particularly my two policy colleagues here, have been working with the Department for quite some time on these asks. We have been building our measures and building that into our future spending review commitment as well.

Yvette Stanley: To build on what Martyn has just said, from a social care perspective we would like to go further on the standards for care. National minimum standards are not good enough; the standards should apply based on the vulnerability of and risk to children. A disabled child in a residential special school should not be getting a different level of support: the same safeguards should be in place whether they are in a children’s home or in a residential special school.

We would like to go further on corporate parenting. That is something to be addressed. We would also like to look at regional care co-operatives and regional adoption agencies. Those things tend to fall out of our purview as an inspectorate. There is a range of really detailed things, but to echo what Martyn says, we are working actively with our DFE policy colleagues to give our very best advice through the Bill process to strengthen these things wherever possible.

[Munira Wilson]

Q I want to pick up on Neil’s question about the automatic intervention by Ofsted where, with a failing school, an academy order is put in place. I am just a bit perplexed by the timing of the Bill. Although I support the provision that it should not always be automatic, given that you are only just about to launch a consultation on your framework, and perhaps the Department around the accountability measures, are we moving too soon in the Bill before we have had the consultation on your new framework?

Sir Martyn Oliver: The consultation will meet the Government test and will run for 12 weeks imminently. The Bill will obviously pass through the House at that time. I think it will bring it all together in a more joined-up system. The system has been calling for inspection and accountability to be joined up, and we are about to deliver that in, I hope, the next few weeks. Of course, the consultation is not a fait accompli. I will be really interested to receive feedback from everyone, and we will respond to that at the end and see where it takes us. I hope that at the end it will be a better system for vulnerable and disadvantaged children, alongside all children, to keep them safe and well-educated.

[Matt Bishop (Forest of Dean) (Lab)]

Q Sir Martyn, you mentioned in relation to Neil’s question that staff, not necessarily with qualified teacher status, can be a great supplement. I agree that they can be, but can you just clarify that that “supplement” means a supplement, not the main teacher for the whole academic year, year on year?

Sir Martyn Oliver: Again, it would depend. In the past, I have brought in professional sportspeople to teach alongside PE teachers, and they have run sessions. Because I was in Wakefield, it was rugby league: I had rugby league professionals working with about a quarter of the schools in Wakefield at one point. I had a tremendous amount of help from the local rugby teams, but that was alongside qualified teachers carrying out that work. That was important to me, because those qualified teachers could meet the risk assessment regarding the activity of teaching children rugby league. Having that specialism is key. There is a reason why you train to be a teacher and it is a profession.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Now Lib Dem spokesperson Munira Wilson.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Mark, you pointed out that this is a children’s wellbeing Bill but there is not actually much discussion about wellbeing in the Bill. You talked about a national wellbeing measurement. Beyond that, and if we had that data, could the Bill go further in terms of talking about the provision of services to support children’s wellbeing and mental health?

Mark Russell: In a word, yes. A national wellbeing measurement would be a really good place to start, because it would give us the data showing how children’s lives really are, and would put the voice of children at the centre of this. In the meantime, there is the measurement we have. We are part of a coalition of charities, as well as the Children’s Charities Coalition, involving pro bono economics. Lord Gus O’Donnell said the national measurement is the missing piece in the Bill.

As a group of charities we have also been urging a wider improvement of early intervention support for young people around mental health. Young people too often wait until crisis before we intervene. In the period between when a GP diagnoses that a young person needs help and when they finally get it, that young person’s mental health spirals further out of control. That has an impact on their whole family and their ability to attend and thrive in school, and it means that more young people end up in the children’s social care system as well. An investment in early intervention is a long-term investment to improve children’s mental health, which, in my view, would create stronger adults as well.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Katharine, do you think we could go further with this Bill in terms of unregistered, unregulated accommodation for young people in care, which has been a topic of many a scandal in recent years?

Katharine Sacks-Jones: There are some really welcome measures in here, and increasing Ofsted’s powers and increasing oversight, particularly of private providers, is all welcome. One of the challenges is the imbalance in the market and the fact that these private providers have so much power because they run over 80% of all children’s homes. There is nothing in the Bill that really increases sufficiency and brings on board more public sector provision and more charity sector provision. While you have that imbalance, some of these challenges will remain, so we think there needs to be more to address sufficiency and we would like to see a national sufficiency strategy to address that.

The provisions as set out also do not cover the providers of supported accommodation, which is accommodation for 16 and 17-year-olds—children—who are still in care, and that can be hostels or bed and breakfasts. We would like to see these provisions extended to that group as well. The Government have previously said that that is something they would consider in time, but we think this is an opportunity to legislate to include the providers of supported accommodation to children in the provisions that are set out here, which would increase transparency and scrutiny of that section of children’s home provision—supported accommodation provision.

[The Chair]

A number of Members want to get in. I ask Members to direct their question to whoever you think might be the most appropriate to answer it, and then if the other members of the panel say they agree, we will move forward. If they do not, of course they can say that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q Thank you for being here today. What is your assessment generally of the impact of the Bill on faith schools?

Nigel Genders: The Church of England’s part of the sector is very broad in that of the 4,700 schools that we provide, the vast majority of our secondary schools are already academies, and less than half of our primary schools, which are by far the biggest part of that number, are academies. We would like to see the system develop in a way that, as is described in the Bill, brings consistency across the piece. In terms of the impact on our schools, my particular worry will be with the small rural primary schools. Sorry to go on about statistics, but of the small rural primary schools in the country—that is schools with less than 210 children—the Church of England provides 65%.

The flexibilities that schools gain by joining a multi-academy trust, enabling them to deploy staff effectively across a whole group of schools and to collaborate and work together, is something that we really value. What we would not like to see is a watering down of the opportunities for that kind of collaboration. We set out our vision for education in a document called “Our Hope for a Flourishing School System”. Our vision is of widespread collaboration between trusts, and between trusts and academies. The diocesan family of schools is one where that collaboration really happens.

We want to ensure that this attempt to level the playing field in terms of the freedoms available to everyone is a levelling-up rather than a levelling down. I know that the Secretary of State commented on this in the Select Committee last week. I also know that the notes and comments around this Bill talk about those freedoms being available to everybody, but, for me, the Bill does not reflect that. It is not on the face of the Bill that this is about levelling-up. In terms of risk to our sector, I would like to see some reassurance that this is about bringing those freedoms and flexibility for innovation to the whole of our sector because we are equally spread across academies and maintained schools.

Paul Barber: Equally, we have a large foot in both camps. Slightly different in shape, we are involved in all sectors of the school system but the vast majority of our schools are either maintained schools or academies. Currently academies make up just over half. Because our academy programmes are led by dioceses in a strategic way, we buck the national trend in that the number of our primary schools, secondary schools, and academies is almost identical. I agree with what Nigel said. This is a jigsaw of many parts. What we need is an overall narrative into which these reforms fit. It was good yesterday to be able to sign the “Improving Education Together partnership”, to collaborate with the Government in a closer way to create that narrative.

[Munira Wilson]

Q I want to pick up on the faith cap issue that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raised. The 50% faith cap for all new free schools was a policy put in place by the coalition Government. There are concerns that the provisions in this Bill to allow other providers to open new schools would mean that the faith cap does not apply to them. Nigel, I know you are on the record as saying that Church of England schools should be inclusive and serve the whole local community. What do you think will be the impact of losing that faith cap, and should we be putting in an amendment to ensure that the cap is in place for all new schools?

Nigel Genders: I have a couple of things to say on that, if I may. I think where this Bill makes a statement in terms of legislative change is in the ability for any new school not to have to be a free school. That opens up the possibility of voluntary-aided and voluntary-controlled schools as well as community schools and free schools. In each of those cases, you are right, our priority is serving that local community. It is an irony that there is a part of the Bill about new schools when, actually, most of the pressure is from surplus places rather than looking for more places. In particular areas of the country where there is rapid population and housing growth, or in areas of disadvantage and need, we would be really keen to have every option to open a school. I am concerned to ensure that local authorities are given the capacity to manage that process effectively, if they are the arbiters of that competition process in the future.

For us, opening a new school, which we do quite regularly as we are passionate about involvement in the education system, is done with the commitment to provide places for the locality. Where schools can make a case for a different model, and in other faith communities as well, which I am sure Paul will go on to say, is for them to do. Our position is that a Church school is for the whole community and we will seek to deliver that under the 50% cap.

Paul Barber: As I understand the Bill, it removes the academy presumption, so if a local authority runs a competition, there has to be a preference for academies. The provision for providers to propose new schools independently of that has always existed, currently exists and is not being changed, as I understand it, in this legislation as drafted.

In terms of the provision of new schools, we are in a slightly different position because we are the largest minority community providing schools primarily for that community but welcoming others. Our schools are in fact the most diverse in the country. Ethnically, linguistically, socioeconomically and culturally, they are more diverse than any other type of school. We provide new schools where there is a need for that school—where there is a parental wish for a Catholic education. We are very proud of the fact that that demand now comes from not just the Catholic community, but a much wider range of parents who want what we offer. We would not propose a new school, and we have a decades-long track record of working with local authorities to work out the need for additional places.

Admissions is one half of a complex thing; the other is provision of places. Our dioceses work very closely with local authorities to determine what kind of places are needed. That might mean expansion or contraction of existing schools. Sometimes, it might mean a new school. If it means a new school, we will propose a new Catholic school only where there are sufficient parents wanting that education to need a new Catholic school. The last one we opened was in East Anglia in 2022. It was greatly appreciated by the local community, which was clamouring for that school to be opened. That is our position on the provision of new schools. We will try to provide new schools whenever parents want the education that we are offering.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Nigel, I was interested that you said that 65% of small rural primaries are Church of England schools. The Bill’s provisions state that breakfast clubs will be a universal offering. Will those small rural primary schools have the capacity to deliver what is laid out in the legislation?

Nigel Genders: That is a really important question. Broadly, all our schools are really supportive of the breakfast club initiative and think it is helpful to be able to provide that offer to children, for all the reasons already articulated during the previous panel. You are right that there will be particular challenges in small schools in terms of staffing, managing the site, providing the breakfast and all those things. As the funding for the roll-out of breakfast clubs is considered, it may be that there need to be some different models. The economies of scale in large trusts serving 2,000, 3,000 or 4,000 children are quite different from those of a school that has 40 or 50 children, one member of staff and probably a site manager. The ability to provide breakfast for every child in a fair way needs further consideration. The legislation is right to endeavour to do that, but the detail will be about the funding to make that possible.

[Lizzi Collinge]

Q I want to follow up on a couple of previous questions and make sure that I have clarity about something that I appreciate is complex. This is about faith selection, particularly in relation to clause 51. Do you expect that Church of England and Catholic schools—if you have any information about other faith groups, I welcome it, but I appreciate that you do not represent other faith groups—in the short, medium or long term will use the changes brought in by clause 51 to open new schools with 100% faith-based selection?

Paul Barber: Clause 51 does not change the parameters within which we can open new schools. As drafted at the moment, the Bill leaves that possibility exactly as it is today. I have outlined my position on when we would seek to open new schools. The idea of opening new schools and creating new places is to satisfy all the parental demand. The provision of places and admissions are two things that work together. If an area has insufficient places in Catholic schools for all the families who want to take advantage of that education, obviously the longer term solution is to create more places, but in the shorter term it has always been part of the system—in our view, very reasonably—that if there are insufficient places, priority should be given to the community who provided the school in the first place, with others afterwards. That has always been part of the system that we have operated in since the 19th century.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

Q My second question is about admissions. Do you think that it is important for all schools to at least co-operate with local authorities on school admissions and place planning?

Sir Dan Moynihan: It is important for all schools to co-operate. With 9 million children in schools, I think only 55 directions were given in 2023 by local authorities. For me, the key issue is that it is important that there is co-operation, but there is potentially a conflict of interest if local authorities are opening their own schools and there are very hard-to-place kids. There is a conflict of interest in where they are allocating those children, so there needs to be a clear right of appeal in order to ensure that that conflict can be exposed if necessary.

Luke Sparkes: It is important for academies to work with local authorities. I think we accept that the current arrangements are fractured, but—similarly to what Sir Dan said—it is that conflict of interest that we have been concerned about. Although there is going to be an independent adjudicator, the question is whether they will be well placed to make those policy and financial decisions—almost becoming a commissioner role—and whether that would be the right way or not.

Sir Jon Coles: The short answer is yes. I do think it is important. I would like to see Government issue some guidance on how the powers will be used, and to say to everybody, “Here are the rules of the game, and this is what good practice looks like.” I think people are worried about whether there are conflicts of interest and poor practice. Of course, these powers could be abused, but my personal concern about that is very low. I do not think they will be abused. However, I think it would give everyone a lot of reassurance if the Government—you, as Ministers—put out some guidance saying, “This is how we would like this to work. These are the criteria. This is what good practice looks like. This is how we want the system to work.” I think that would make everybody feel comfortable that things will be done fairly.

Sir Dan Moynihan: Could I add to my previous answer, please? Some of the schools we have taken on have failed because they have admitted large numbers of hard-to-place children. I can think of one borough we operate in where councillors were very open about the fact that there was a school that took children that other schools would not take. They said that openly, and the reason they did not want it to become an academy was because that process would end. The school was seen as a dumping ground. I think there are schools that get into difficulty and fail because there is perceived local hierarchy of schools, and those are the schools that get those children. That is why there needs to be a clear right of appeal to prevent that from happening.

[Munira Wilson]

Q I have a very simple question, first of all. As senior leaders in the academy trust space, were you consulted on the measures in the Bill, either formally or informally?

Sir Dan Moynihan: indicated dissent.

Sir Jon Coles: indicated dissent.

Luke Sparkes: indicated dissent.

[Munira Wilson]

Q No. Okay. Some of the data that we have seen about how these freedoms are used across the country shows that actually, the vast majority of academies do follow the national pay scales, QTS and the national curriculum. I take on board the concerns that you have raised about pay and conditions, and that is why a number of us are pressing for pay to be a floor, not a ceiling—we will be trying to amend the Bill that way. However, do you think that if this legislation goes through as is, it will make much difference day to day, on the ground? Will it especially make a difference if we put the floor in place?

Sir Jon Coles: The provisions, as drafted, in relation to pay and conditions, would make a big difference to us. It is interesting that you say that the data says that not many people are doing it. I don’t think there is good data on that question—I have never seen any. Among the schools that we take on, including both maintained schools and academies, more schools are deviating from the rules than think they are. It is very common for us to take on both maintained schools and academies that have, usually in small ways but sometimes in slightly bigger ways, adopted different terms and conditions to the national terms and conditions. They have made local agreements without necessarily having themselves identified that they are diverging from national pay and conditions. There are more examples than people might think of schools using some flexibility.

In relation to the other things, as Dan says, there are specific circumstances in which people do vary in relation to the curriculum for specific reasons, in specific circumstances, and tend to do so for short periods of time. There are specific occasions on which people use the QTS freedoms, usually for short periods of time, usually while people are being trained, sometimes because they could not get somebody for other good reasons.

Fundamentally, my top concerns and priorities are pay and conditions provisions because they will have a serious impact on us.

[Munira Wilson]

To clarify, my point about data was based on DFE data in the briefing from the House of Commons Library. Should we look at it the other way? Rather than trying to restrict academy freedoms, should we give those freedoms to all schools so that we are not differentiating between academies and other types of schools?

Sir Dan Moynihan: Yes. The public purse is going to be hugely constrained, as we all know, for years to come. The base at which we are constraining schools is inadequate and we are freezing the system where it is now. If we want a world-leading system in the future, given that the resource is not going to be there to materially change things, one key way to do it is to give schools the freedom that academies have had to transform failing schools in the worst circumstances. Why should every school not have that freedom? It makes sense.

Luke Sparkes: Yes, and the majority of schools are academy schools, so it would make sense to level up rather than level down. On the innovation point, there are more academies that innovate than we would perhaps think. Innovation tends to happen on the edges and our schools, the most complex schools, are on the edges. The idea is that a few innovate, then that innovation diffuses over time and becomes the norm. If we lose the opportunity for anybody to innovate, we will just stifle and stagnate.

Sir Jon Coles: I agree with all of that. If it were up to me, I would be saying, “More freedom; more accountability.” What has made a difference in improving education and public services, not just in this country but internationally, has been giving more responsibility to the people who are accountable for performance. If you are the person who has to achieve results and do the right thing for children, the way to get strong performance is to make you the person responsible for making the decisions and then hold you to account for them. I think that is a good system-wide set of principles, not just in education but in public service reform generally: sharp accountability for decision makers, and decision makers as the people accountable for performance. That is what drives us. I would absolutely make the case to free up everybody.

Sir Dan Moynihan: It is not clear what problem this is solving. I have seen no evidence to suggest that academy freedoms are creating an issue anywhere. Why are we doing this?

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine McKinnell]

Q This question is probably more for you, Leora, but if other people have comments, they are perfectly welcome. I understand that many small trusts are free to follow the school teacher pay and conditions document without variation. Does that indicate that the current pay and conditions framework is working for those trusts?

Leora Cruddas: Thank you for that important question. Our position as the Confederation of School Trusts is that we must not just think about the practice as it is now, but consider what we want to achieve in the future. The freedom, flexibility and agility that Rebecca talked about is important if we are to ensure that leaders have the flexibility to do what is right in their context to raise standards for children. It is also important in terms of creating a modern workforce. We know that we have a recruitment and retention crisis. We know that there is a growing gap between teacher pay and graduate pay, and that the conditions for teaching are perhaps less flexible in some ways than in other public sector and private sector roles. So it is incumbent upon us to think about how attractive teaching is as a profession and think in really creative ways about how we can ensure that teaching is an attractive, flexible, brilliant profession, where we bring to it our moral purpose, but also create the conditions that the workforce of the future would find desirable and attractive.

[Munira Wilson]

Q May I start with you, Leora? I want to ask the same question that I asked the academy leaders who came before you. As a membership organisation representing academy trusts, were you consulted on the provisions in the Bill relating to academies, either formally or informally?

Leora Cruddas: The conversations that we would be having with any Government prior to a policy being announced or a Bill being laid are typically quite confidential. There is also something about what you mean by the term “consultation”. We did have conversations with the Government, and those conversations were constructive and remained constructive. I would say that CST is committed to continuing to work with the Government to get the Bill to the right place.

[Munira Wilson]

Q On school improvement, I have long called for there not to be an automatic order to become an academy if a school requires improvement. There seems to be a concern, as was brought out in some of the earlier sessions, that that is being done in a bit of a vacuum. It is all very well saying that the Secretary of State “may” issue such an order, but she may not, so what might she do instead? Would you like to see more information on that and more consultation on whatever the school improvement framework would look like before we pass that provision in the Bill?

Leora Cruddas: I think the answer to that is yes. The Government are bringing forward a consultation alongside Ofsted imminently, which might be an opportunity to set out some of those accountability arrangements.

I would also say that academy trusts have really proved their mettle here. You might want to go to Jane next, because the Northern Education Trust is such a strong northern sponsor trust and has taken schools that have not been good in the history of state education, turned them around and made them into schools that parents and communities can be really proud of. The school that I often cite is North Shore, which was really struggling and is now an absolutely brilliant school with high levels of attendance. There is a proven model here, and I would say that if Ofsted decides that a school is in special measures, our view is that a governance change is necessary.

However, I do take the policy position that the Government have put forward that they need a range of levers to improve schools. We are not opposed to there being a range of levers to improve schools, but we would want to acknowledge the fact that trusts have excelled in that area and have turned around those schools that have been failing for a long time.

[Munira Wilson]

Q How do you think the curriculum provisions in the Bill might impact university technical colleges, which are by definition much more specialist in their offering?

Leora Cruddas: That is a question that we have raised. We hope that the curriculum and assessment review will address that issue, but it is also for the Government to address it, because the review will look at the high level of curriculum and assessment, whereas it is the Government who have laid the legislation. We have raised that as a specific issue, and we have also raised the issue about special schools and what it means for them.

[Damian Hinds]

Q Good afternoon. Leora, how central a role would you say that academy trusts have played in school improvement in this country? Is there any reason to believe that the same results could not have been achieved with just some support to the school as previously structured?

Leora Cruddas: I am an advocate for academy trusts, because of the clarity of accountability arrangements, the strong strategic governance, and the powerful, purposeful partnership between schools in a single legal entity. If a school is part of an academy trust and it is perhaps not improving or the quality of education is not as strong as it could be, and a conversation is had with that school, the school cannot walk away. The accountability for school improvement—the partnership mindset—is hardwired into the trust sector.

For the last 20 years, spanning all political Administrat-ions, trusts have been building their school improvement capacity. Again, I would cite Northern Education Trust, which has an incredibly strong model of school improvement, and that is how it has turned around failing schools in the way that it has. The school improvement capacity sits in the trust sector.

That is not to cast aspersions on local authorities—I was a director of education in local government for most of my professional life—but over time, as local authority settlements have decreased and local authorities have reduced their school improvement capacity, so we have seen the rise of school improvement capacity in the trust sector. That is not true everywhere—Camden Learning, for example, has a very powerful model of school improvement—but overall, we see that the capacity for school improvement is in the trust sector.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

Q Kate, it is good to see you again. Thank you for giving evidence to the Committee. I have a specific question around school uniform provisions in the Bill. Do you think that the provisions in the Bill on school uniform items for primary schools will support families and children with the cost of living?

Kate Anstey: We were very pleased to see Government taking action on reducing the cost of the school day, and uniforms are a huge pressure for families. We have done some research looking at the cost of uniforms for families. If you are a primary-aged family, the cost is £350 minimum, and it goes up to about £450 for secondary-aged families. That is for one child, of course, so that multiplies if you have more children. Part of that includes the fact that schools sometimes have excessive lists of compulsory branded items, so we were very pleased to see that acknowledgment in the Bill and the recognition that that needs to be limited. We think that that will make some difference to families.

The Bill could have gone further. I am not sure why the difference has been made between secondary and primary on the minimum. I think that those should be the same; there should not be a discrepancy there. I encourage Government to consider going further on this and bringing down the branded items as much as possible, because that is one of the things that place pressure on families.

In addition, the Bill could go further to support families with the cost of uniforms. In every other UK nation, families get grants and support with school costs. England is the only one that is lagging behind in that area, so we would like the idea of lower-income families getting more support with the cost to be looked at. This is two-pronged: schools need to do more, but families really do need help to meet some of those costs as well.

One more thing on uniform that comes up a lot in our research with children and young people is that children are being isolated or sent home from school because they do not meet requirements around uniform. DFE data showed that 18% of children in hardship were sent home for not meeting uniform requirements. I find that kind of shocking when we have an attendance crisis. Something needs to be done around the guidance for behaviour in schools to ensure that children are not sanctioned for poverty-related issues or issues relating to uniform. Those are areas where I think that the Bill could have gone further, but we certainly think restricting branded items is a good thing.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Kate, you touched on the fact that the Bill does not really address the needs of children at secondary school who might be in poverty. I know that the Child Poverty Action Group has long campaigned on expanding eligibility for free school meals. Could you tell us whether you would like to see the threshold of eligibility across both primary and secondary raised? Also, should we be looking at auto-enrolment?

Kate Anstey: I think the Bill was a real missed opportunity to do more on free school meals. Again, school food comes up in every conversation we have. At the moment, we estimate that about one in three children in poverty do not qualify for free school meals because that threshold is painfully low. It has not been updated since 2018. As CPAG, ultimately, we want to see means-testing removed from lunchtime altogether. We want children to be in school and able to learn. They have to be there at lunchtime. There is no reason why we should not feed every child universally and make it part of the school day, but I think there is an urgent need to increase that threshold as much as possible to support more lower-income families.

[Munira Wilson]

Q To what level?

Kate Anstey: As I say, we would like to see universal provision, but the fact that currently you can be eligible for universal credit and state-funded benefits and yet your child cannot get a bit of support in the form of a hot meal at lunchtime is completely wrong, in my mind. I think, at the very least, it should go to all families on universal credit.

[Munira Wilson]

Q And auto-enrolment?

Kate Anstey: Yes. The data on auto-enrolment shows that around one in 10 children who are eligible for free school meals are not registered. That is for a whole host of reasons, including families not knowing they are entitled and families struggling with the admin. There is a very clear fix to this: if the DWP and the DFE work together to do the right data sharing, those children can be automatically enrolled. At the moment, many local authorities are doing a brilliant job of putting opt-out schemes in place, but that is highly onerous and those systems are not perfect, so they still miss children. We absolutely would say that increasing eligibility for free school meals is a priority, as is making sure that everybody who is entitled is getting one. The children who are missing out because they are not registered are some of the poorest. They are missing out on the meal and the benefits that go alongside that.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Nutritionally, would you say a hot meal at lunchtime is more beneficial than a breakfast?

Kate Anstey: As I said, take-up of breakfast clubs or different schemes is around 40%, whereas the vast majority of children are in school for lunchtime. Children will be there and able to access that hot meal, so they are more likely to feel the benefits, whereas the effects of breakfast clubs depend on whether that offer is taken up.

[Tom Hayes]

I want to make a reference to the previous witness. It is my first time at a Committee oral hearing, and I am slightly astonished that there was no declaration that the previous witness was a parliamentary candidate at the election just gone—[Interruption.]

--- Later in debate ---

[The Chair]

Order. Given the shortage of time, this is moving further away from the legislation than we should allow. Can we move on to Munira Wilson?

[Munira Wilson]

Q It has become clear from some of the evidence today that in terms of the priorities and challenges facing schools today, it feels like some leaders have been a bit blindsided by the provisions in the schools part of the Bill. The provisions are also not really tackling the biggest challenges, which are the SEND system in crisis and the children’s mental health crisis. They are perhaps tackling problems that some leaders do not feel are there. Could you explain why you have decided to go for these measures as opposed to the areas that union leaders, school leaders and children are telling us that we really need to be focusing on? Arguably recruitment and retention is another crisis area, and some of these measures could actually hinder recruitment and retention.

Catherine McKinnell: I would point blank refute your last assertion on the basis that any measures in the Bill are very much intended to tackle some of the challenges with recruitment and retention. We are committed to making sure that not only do we have the teaching professionals we need in our schools, but that they are suitably qualified and that we drive those high and rising standards. We know that having excellent teaching and leadership in school, and a curriculum that is built on high standards and shared knowledge, means a system that will break down the barriers that are holding children back.

On the specifics you raise in relation to mental health and other challenges in the school system, we are very alive to these issues. I am conscious that I have done all the talking so far, so perhaps Mr Morgan wants to come in on that point.

Stephen Morgan: To echo my ministerial colleague, this is a landmark Bill, and we are really pleased to be bringing it forward so quickly in the new Government’s term. We are looking forward to working with all Members as we get into the detail of the clauses in the coming weeks.

On mental health, you will be aware of the commitment we set out in our manifesto to recruit 8,500 new mental health professionals and to introduce dedicated mental health support in every school. We also have our young futures programme. We take extremely seriously our commitments on mental health, because we know that it can be a barrier to behaviour and attendance at school. While they are not specifically included in the Bill, we will bring forward further measures to support children and young people with their mental health.

[Munira Wilson]

Q I would include SEND as well as being missing in the Bill, but I am conscious of time. The Children’s Commissioner in her email to the Committee last night said that we need to see an impact assessment and a children’s rights assessment. When can we expect to see those?

Stephen Morgan: There is more work to do before presenting the impact assessment to the Committee. It is currently with the regulatory committee, but we acknowledge that this is information that should be brought before the Bill Committee, and we will do so as quickly as we can.

[Munira Wilson]

Q Specifically on the register of children not in school and the powers you are giving to local authorities to deny parents the right to home school their children, I go back to some of the questions I asked witnesses earlier. Why have you put in such an onerous list of information that you want from parents? Do you really need that to be able to operate an effective register? Given the state of SEND provision in our state sector, is it right that you are giving local authorities the power to say no to a parent who does not feel that their child’s needs are being met at a special school and wishes to withdraw them? Will you reconsider that, given the concerns from parents of SEND children?

Catherine McKinnell: That was an awful lot of questions, and I am not sure whether we have time to address them all, but our fundamental approach is that all children have the right to a safe and suitable education, whether they are educated at school or otherwise. We have given quite significant consideration to, and had consultation with stakeholders on, how to get the balance right and having a proportionate approach: ensuring that local authorities can be assured that children not in school are receiving a high standard of education, which every child deserves, but not making any changes to a parent’s ability to educate their child. We absolutely support their right to do so. The information that will be required to make those determinations has been carefully thought through, but there will be an opportunity to discuss all these matters in great detail in Committee. I reject the hon. Lady’s framing of this issue, because I think it is right that we have the provisions in place to ensure that every child is safe. We have a duty to do so.

Stephen Morgan: It is worth saying that we will engage with stakeholders to ensure that any burdens the registers impose on parents are minimised, and that we will consult on statutory guidance to support local authorities and schools to implement the measures in a proportionate way. We have heard today from witnesses about how strong those measures will be and what a difference they can make.

[The Chair]

There is time for a few brief questions from Members.

Creative Arts Education

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 18th December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I first say this, Mr Mundell: you have done the long yards this afternoon—three debates. I do not know whether that gets you overtime or what, but well done.

I commend the hon. Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on setting the scene so well. This is her first Westminster Hall debate and, on the basis of this example, I think it will be the first of many, so I wish her well.

The creative arts across the United Kingdom are something to be proud of. We have a fantastic range of arts and lots of enthusiastic people who make them what they are. I always love to take part in these debates to showcase the talent of Northern Ireland and, more importantly, my constituency of Strangford.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) referred to playing the flute—how we love to play the flute in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland, playing the flute is like riding a bike, by the way: nearly everybody learns to play. There might be a reason for that, of course.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Give us a demo.

[Jim Shannon]

I have not brought my flute. I could whistle a tune, but I will not.

I always like to talk about something we have done in Northern Ireland. In late 2022—I know the Minister will be pleased to hear this, as an example of what can be done—the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, the Education Authority and the Urban Villages initiative announced funding for the continuation of the creative schools programme in 11 secondary schools, which was fantastic news for the education system across Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) referred to the importance of the arts. The arts are a vocation and many people need to recognise that. There are so many young people out there who see themselves going into the arts, film or the creative industries, so funding for our local schools through the Urban Villages initiative is good news. I have spoken before in Westminster Hall and the Chamber of the amazing talent that Northern Ireland has to offer, specifically in the film industry. We have made leaps and bounds in the film sector over the years.

I will give another example. I noticed recently in my constituency and neighbouring constituencies that controlled or commissioned graffiti is becoming massively popular within the creative arts industry. In Newtownards, which I represent, an Ulster Farmers’ Union building has historically always been subject to criminal graffiti, but now it has been transformed through the creative arts, and it looks fantastic. I have also seen many streets, alleys and walls completely changed by graffiti, and the work that goes into that should be respected and admired. Northern Ireland probably has a lot more graffiti than most, but we realised what could be done creatively with graffiti. At last, that is an indication of where we can go.

The creative schools programme initially launched as a pilot scheme in 2017 and so far 1,000 young boys and girls—men and women—have benefited from it. That is a fantastic number of people destined for stardom and progress. The programme places a focus on improving educational outcomes for children across a wide range of artistic sectors. It is not the Minister’s responsibility, but it is crucial that we continue to fund it in Northern Ireland, so that we truly give young people the opportunity to showcase the amazing talent that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has to offer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Mundell. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) on securing this important debate, and I have enjoyed learning a lot about her illustrious background. I cannot claim to be anywhere near as accomplished as she is, but I used to love doing amateur dramatics at school and university, so I can see a Lib Dem drama club emerging at some point soon. Anyway, I will now move on to the serious part of the speech.

The Beatles, Damien Hirst, Amy Winehouse, Anthony Hopkins, Judi Dench and Vivienne Westwood are just a few examples of the brilliant artists who our country has produced over the past century. Our creative industries are renowned throughout the world and, as we have already heard, they contribute enormously to our economy, employing more than 2.3 million people every year.

It is vital that we preserve and grow our arts, which starts with promoting creative education in our schools. As we have already heard, the benefits of creative education are numerous, from developing a lifelong passion to helping children and young people with their mental health and equipping them with important life skills.

Sadly, however, creative education has not been treated with the priority it deserves and teaching in schools has suffered as a result. There are now 15,000 fewer full and part-time teachers of arts subjects in schools than in 2010. With fewer specialised teaching staff and increasingly constrained budgets, we have seen a drop in the number of children taking arts subjects, with enrolment at GCSE level falling by almost a half and at A-level by a third between 2010 and 2023. That means too many children are missing out on the opportunity to broaden their horizons and learn new skills.

At the heart of this issue is the fact that the arts have wrongly been labelled as unimportant and trivial. As a result, in the context of overstretched budgets and limited resources, arts subjects are the first to be cut back, with schools increasingly focusing on their core curriculum offer and extracurricular activities in the arts having to be scaled back.

The Liberal Democrats believe that our children’s education should be rounded and varied. Too often, Conservatives think that creative education is the sacrifice we must make for strong academic standards, but it should not be an either/or situation—it is always both/and. There is plenty of evidence to indicate that there is a link between participation in the arts and higher attainment. I hope that the Government’s ongoing curriculum review and the upcoming reform of Ofsted inspections ensures that all students can access a broad curriculum, including art, music and drama subjects, alongside a strong focus on high academic standards in other subjects.

As the hon. Member for East Thanet (Ms Billington) pointed out, the growing lack of arts provision in our schools, colleges and universities has widened inequalities between disadvantaged students and their peers. It is often only more privileged families who can afford private tuition, extra classes outside school or an independent education, because, as we have heard, the facilities of independent schools are often second to none in terms of the creative arts, thus disadvantaging children from lower socioeconomic backgrounds.

That has a direct impact on who goes on to work in the creative industries, with data showing that there are four times as many individuals from middle-class backgrounds in creative occupations as there are from working-class backgrounds. The arts should not be accessible only to the most privileged. If we want to harness the full talent of our children and young people to ensure that we continue to make the creative industries a powerhouse for our economy, we need to widen opportunities to the arts at every level.

It is not only schools that have seen the take-up of arts subjects plummet but further and higher education institutions. According to the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre, over the past decade there has been a 57% drop in the uptake of creative courses in further and higher education. As we have heard, the exclusion of arts subjects from the English baccalaureate and cuts to funding for creative arts subjects at university by the previous Conservative Government have fuelled this decline.

That is why the Liberal Democrats would like to see arts subjects being included in the English baccalaureate to boost access to the arts. We also need to stop talking down and defunding creative arts degrees and vocational courses, and to drive up high-quality apprenticeships in this area.

Let us be proud of our world-leading institutions. Earlier this year, I visited Wimbledon College of Arts with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr Kohler), and I saw the amazing work that its students do in costume and set design, puppetry and performance. The college is part of the University of the Arts London, which is second in the world for art and design; we should celebrate that. In my own backyard, I went to the Rambert School of Ballet and Contemporary Dance in Twickenham last week, where the students put on the most incredible show. I know that many of them will go on to be talented performers in their own right.

The creative arts enable all of us to lead a fulfilling life, and they are also one of our country’s finest and most recognisable exports. Let us give our children and young people the opportunity to flourish fully, and let us develop a pipeline of talent into our arts sector to ensure that children and young people get the widest opportunity possible at school, college, university and beyond.

[David Mundell (in the Chair)]

I call the shadow Minister to speak; you have five minutes.

Qualifications Reform Review

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement. In the years since the Conservatives’ first botched moves towards prematurely scrapping a range of vocational qualifications, the Liberal Democrats have repeatedly warned of the consequences of that ill thought-through, counterproductive policy, so it is to be welcomed that the Government have heard our and the sector’s concerns. The announcement is a welcome step forward to protect student choice and local decision making, and it is a more pragmatic, rather than ideological, approach. It was clear that the decision to defund was premature. T-levels, while a welcome innovation, had not had enough time to bed in to allow an informed decision, and that risked too many young people being left without appropriate options. Now the Government are providing clarity up to 2027, will the Minister lay out the processes for monitoring and reviewing the impact of those changes until then? Will she lay out the timeline for the longer-term curriculum and assessment review in greater detail?

I have one particular area of concern in the statement, and that is around early years education. Research last year showed that rather than embracing the T-level in education and early years, students overwhelmingly opted for the overlapping qualifications earmarked for defunding. Now we hear the Government will go ahead and proceed with that defunding. Given that reality, how does the announcement square with the Government’s focus and rhetoric around prioritising early years? How will the Government improve recruitment and training in that sector if it is not meeting students’ needs where they are? The point is reflective of a broader question on the announcement, which is: what are the Government’s overarching guiding principles as to which courses will be funded and which will not? The rationale laid out by the Minister suggests they are working on a case-by-case basis, but in the interests of long-term stability and clarity, should the Government not be laying out their principles for how they will approach those decisions more strategically?

Finally, as students face a welcome range of post-16 options—as we have heard, it is a confusing landscape—it is essential that they have excellent support in making those important decisions. How will the Government ensure that all students have access to high-quality careers guidance?

[Janet Daby]

I thank the hon. Member for the many points she made and for acknowledging the Government’s pragmatic response. It was recognised that the previous Government were not focused on social care and childcare, so we needed to relook at those areas and ensure that level 3 and level 2 placements were available. She will be aware that we are conducting the curriculum and assessment review, and the qualifications reform will be connected to the wider review, which will be published next year. There are various other ways that qualifications reform is being monitored in terms of the national audit. We are reviewing the process on an ongoing basis. As well as seeing where the uptake is from students—this is where Skills England will come into play—we are looking at ensuring that organisations and employers are involved in the types of training and courses available for young people, so the connection is very much there. We will follow through with more detail in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 9th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Last week’s announcement of capital funding to ensure that mainstream schools are more inclusive for children with special needs is, of course, welcome, but the Minister will know that, for many children with additional needs, even the most inclusive mainstream schools simply are not appropriate. With two in three special schools at or over capacity, can she provide a timeline for when the 67 planned special free schools will be delivered? Will she commit to looking favourably on local authority applications for such schools?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Lady for her recognition of the additional funding. We expect the funding to create thousands of new places, particularly in mainstream schools but also in special schools and other specialist settings. We will confirm the allocations for individual local authorities in the spring, as they know best how to invest in their local area. We are keeping the free schools programme under review and will provide that confirmation in due course.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

A new report from the Institute for Public Policy Research shows that the most deprived areas have a third fewer childcare places than the most affluent. If the Government are serious about improving school readiness among our children, will the Secretary of State look at the Liberal Democrat proposal to triple the early years pupil premium so that we can tackle the disadvantage gap when it matters most?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I do recognise the challenge the hon. Lady sets out and the very real challenge the Government have inherited in the provision of places. Our approach of rolling out nursery space within primary schools is crucial to creating the places that are required. There is more that we need to do. The system and sector overall require reform, and we will set out more in this area before long.

Children and Bereavement

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 2nd December 2024 Westminster Hall

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Harris. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia) for opening the debate so eloquently, and for representing the views of many people who are present in the Public Gallery. I thank Mark and John for allowing their experiences to be shared today and for their campaigning on this incredibly important issue.

I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Shropshire (Stuart Anderson) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden) for speaking so bravely about their personal experiences. It is never easy to talk in this place about personal experience, in particular when talking about the death of a loved one, a parent or spouse. That is incredibly difficult and it was a privilege to hear their stories—I thank them.

It is estimated that in the UK a child loses a parent every 20 minutes or so. In that moment, a child’s life is changed forever. The estimate does not include other losses, such as the loss of a sibling or a grandparent, which can be equally painful. I think back to the time of the covid pandemic, when talking to teachers and headteachers in schools in my constituency. They were dealing with an awful lot of grief, with children losing relatives they were close to, and they were having to cope with that grief in the school setting. Little data is collected on children’s suffering from such a loss, and I will come back to that in more detail.

Losing a loved one is devastating, no matter what age you are. However, particularly when you are young, still growing and perhaps unable properly to understand the concept of death, grief can be especially difficult to manage. Bereavement can have an impact on every aspect of a child’s life, including their wellbeing, education and overall life outcomes. For this reason, it is critical that children get the practical and emotional support that they desperately need.

Unfortunately, that is not currently the case for all children. There are no official statistics on the number of children who have been bereaved. As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said, we do not know how many children are in that situation or where they live. It is important that both local and national services are aware of the scale of the problem and can identify the children who need our support.

Like those who signed today’s petition and the Members who have spoken in the debate, the Liberal Democrats would like to see the establishment of a national register for bereaved children. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West for her campaigning on this issue. So many children slip through the net, and only some schools provide the support that pupils need. As we have been talking, I was reminded that 30 years ago, almost to the month, a girl in my class at school was killed with her family in a car crash. I remember that we came back after the Christmas holidays—they were killed while on holiday—and our class teacher brought us all together to have a conversation about it. I think back on how important that was. The school continued to work wherever possible with the girls who were closest to the girl who lost her life.

As we have heard from the stories that hon. Members have shared, that certainly is not universally the case. It is important that we recognise the schools that do this work, but so many do not. There is no national mandate from the Department for Education for schools to have a bereavement policy in place, nor is there any national policy to support schools with this. That needs to be rectified, and I hope that the schools Minister will take that away to her Department.

A number of national and local charities are trying to fill the gaps and support children and their families through grief, but lots of children are not being matched up with organisations that could provide them with support, and families are left scrambling. It is a difficult time. Other family members and parents are trying to deal with the grief too, so it is a stressful period. That is why my hon. Friend’s campaign, through her private Member’s Bill, for a legal duty for children to be informed of the support available to them following a loss is so important. I hope that the Minister will take my hon. Friend up on the offer to get this sorted before she has to bring it to the House yet again. The changes would help to improve join-up and ensure that the correct support was available as soon as it was needed.

Even though not every child might choose to take up the support or feel the need to do so, it would still provide a much-needed safety net. Although we do not have the data to know for certain, it is estimated that one in 29 children and young people have lost a parent or sibling. That is almost one child in every classroom. Every child will be affected differently, and we know that many will struggle with their mental health as a result of the loss. Grief is messy and complicated. It does not go away, and it can affect children at different stages of their life. Studies show that some children may have a seemingly mild reaction following a loss but will struggle in subsequent years as the reality sinks in. That is why it is so important that mental health support is available continuously for bereaved children, not just immediately following their loss.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Ms Creasy) said about ensuring that specialist bereavement counselling is available for children, but one reason why the Liberal Democrats have campaigned for years for a dedicated mental health practitioner in every primary and secondary school is to ensure that all children, including those who have been bereaved, have access to mental health support. There should also be community hubs available for children and young people right up to the age of 25, meaning that they can access support as and when they need it, on their own terms.

After a loss, not only do families face significant emotional challenges, but they may also face a financial one. Overnight, a household income can shrink by half, or potentially even more if the person who died was the main breadwinner in the family. Alongside grieving for their partner, many widowed people suddenly have to pay their household bills and childcare costs, or put food on the table, with a sudden loss of income. Bereavement support payments can be a lifeline for families during that time, providing a source of income that might not be found elsewhere. However, in 2017, the previous Government cut funding for those payments by around 50%. Especially in a cost of living crisis, those cuts have been devastating to many families who have suffered a loss.

According to the Childhood Bereavement Network, more than 75% of families are worse off than they would have been under the previous arrangements, with some going into debt and poverty as a result. That is why for some time, the Liberal Democrats have campaigned to double the funding for bereavement support payments. We would use the extra funding not just to increase the size of the payments, but to extend the period of time for which families receive them, giving those suffering from loss much-needed stability.

I am proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Ed Davey), who has talked very openly about his own loss—first he lost his father as a child, and then he nursed his mum as she died of cancer in his teenage years—has campaigned so vociferously on this issue. I am pleased that he worked with other hon. Members to pressure the previous Government to extend bereavement support payments to cohabiting couples.

[Caroline Voaden]

I add my voice to the calls to extend bereavement support payments. I was very lucky—well, not lucky—because I was bereaved before those changes were made, and I had bereavement support payments for quite a long time. I want to say a couple of things on that. The reason why someone gets bereavement support payments is that their partner who has died has paid national insurance contributions. My husband spent 20 years paying national insurance contributions, and he would never get a pension. To get some kind of payment as a bereaved parent is only just, because the state will never pay out that pension later on.

As I have previously said, grief does not just stop after 18 months. A bereaved parent of young children is left to pick up the pieces, look after their children and go back to work, because they have lost an income—quite often the main income of the family. It is important for the state of the NHS, our economy and everything else that a bereaved parent is as balanced and stable as possible so that their children can remain balanced and stable. It is good for the family and society as a whole. The more help we can give a parent—perhaps to work part time, so that they can be more available to their bereaved children—the better. Sorry, that was too long; excuse me, Mrs Harris.

[Munira Wilson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention; she put across her points far more powerfully than I could, and I urge the Minister to listen. I hope that she and her fellow Ministers in other Departments will look at increasing the funding for bereavement support. At the very least, I hope they uprate it, because it has depreciated hugely in recent years. They should also increase the time period over which it is paid, because we have heard how important that is. I know that finances are stretched, but we are talking about a small number of children who have experienced the most horrendous loss.

The implications of a loss can be especially complicated for certain families, especially single-parent families where the caring parent dies. The loss of a parent or guardian can often leave children with no one to look after them, and as a result, family members may step up overnight to take care of them. Such a situation accounts for almost one in 10 children living in kinship care. That was the case for my constituent, April—I call her that to anonymise her. She suddenly became a kinship carer for her nephew, who had no one else to look after him after his mum passed away from cancer. His stepfather had left the family shortly after his mum’s diagnosis. At the council’s request, April stepped up at very short notice to provide a caring and loving home to her nephew, but that came at great personal cost to her and her family.

The Minister will be aware that I have long campaigned to ensure that kinship carers have the right support. Kinship carers such as April do their utmost to look after the children in their care, but they often need additional support because of sudden changes in their living arrangements, and because of the traumatic circumstances. Too many children in such situations simply cannot access the support they need, so we should provide better access to therapeutic support. We should also extend pupil premium plus funding to kinship children so that they are on a par with looked-after children and can access the support and wraparound care that they desperately need, inside and outside school. Unfortunately, too many kinship carers are desperately trying to get their children support, but to no avail.

These problems affect not just the children but the carers. Talking about her family’s experience, kinship carer Levette said:

“When my daughter passed away all I could focus on was keeping the children emotionally stable. Losing their mother was a traumatic experience for them and I wanted to make sure they were able to grieve. I wasn’t able to find time to grieve myself”.

No one should have to feel that way after the loss of a loved one. Although we cannot take away a child’s pain and grief, as a society we owe it to them to do all we can to provide emotional, practical and financial support. That starts with having a register, ensuring that schools have policies for teaching about grief and bereavement in an age-appropriate and sensitive way within the curriculum, and addressing the lack of financial support. It is crucial that we give children in difficult circumstances the best possible chance to overcome their challenges and thrive, so I hope the Government will implement the changes that I and many others have outlined today.

Educational Opportunities

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Pritchard. I congratulate the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Tony Vaughan) on securing such an important and wide-ranging debate. Tackling barriers to educational opportunity is critical to everything—to the lives of our young people, to the strength of our economy, and to the future of our country and society. Given the breadth of the topic, I hope Members will forgive me for not being able to cover everything in depth, but I will try to cover as much territory as I can.

Children face all sorts of barriers to the education they deserve, whether that is growing up in poverty at home, or getting the necessary support for special educational needs, disabilities or mental ill health. Some children may grow up in foster care, and more than 140,000 grow up in kinship care, as the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes (Melanie Onn) discussed. They may be young carers, which the hon. Members for Leeds South West and Morley (Mr Sewards) and for Harlow (Chris Vince) mentioned. None of their needs should be forgotten—everything from hunger, to abuse, to the damaging impact of social media should be taken into account. They are all barriers that young people face in their education today.

It is not just about children at school; the vital role of education starts in the early years and continues throughout people’s lives. Indeed, the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe opened the debate by focusing on adult education and skills, which is vital at a time when the demands of our economy are changing so rapidly and unpredictably. It has never been more important that adults have the opportunities they need to learn new skills so that they can get well-paid, secure new jobs. I look forward to seeing the detail that the new Government bring forward in their reform of the apprenticeship levy and their review of the reform of level 3 qualifications. I also hope they will look at boosting apprenticeship pay for young people, which is out of step with the national minimum wage.

Rather than speak about all those things in any detail, I will focus on a few barriers and offer a few solutions that I hope the Minister will consider carefully. One of the biggest barriers to educational opportunities is, of course, poverty. With just over 4 million children in the UK estimated to be living in poverty, that equates to nine in every classroom. In a country like ours, that is utterly shameful. Many hon. Members who are former teachers will recognise the phrase often said to me when I go into schools, which is that school staff see themselves as the fourth emergency service as they deal with poverty and the social issues that brings. Whether it is children living in poor housing, with poor health or with challenging relationships at home, we all hear from teachers who spend time helping disadvantaged pupils with food, uniforms and other basics that their families are struggling to provide. That simply cannot go on.

I suggest to the Minister that there are three ways to tackle poverty, and child poverty in particular. First, we should abolish the cruel two-child benefit cap, which denies more than one and a half million children and their families the support they deserve. Its abolition would lift some 300,000 children out of poverty immediately, giving them the chance to learn, to grow and to access the life chances that are available to some of their more well-off classmates.

Secondly, we should extend eligibility for free school meals. Food poverty poses a particular barrier to education: hungry children struggle to learn and they often struggle with their behaviour. They face a fundamental barrier that many of their classmates may be lucky enough to avoid, and there is simply no excuse in 2024 for a child to be hungry at school. By expanding free school meals to all children in poverty, we could ensure that 900,000 children are no longer at risk of being hungry in the afternoon and having to learn on an empty stomach. I urge the Minister to make that commitment.

If that is too big an ask of the Chancellor, a good first step would be the auto-enrolment of all those who are eligible for free school meals. In Lib Dem-led Durham county council, the introduction of auto-enrolment this academic year has already led to some 2,500 extra children receiving a hot, healthy meal in the middle of the school day. All the evidence tells us that those children will have improved educational and health outcomes.

Thirdly, we should tackle the attainment gap through a tutoring guarantee. The attainment gap between disadvantaged and more well-off pupils has widened every year since 2020. The evidence is clear that tutoring can be highly effective in improving educational outcomes for disadvantaged young people. Small-group tutoring showed its value under the national tutoring programme, which was poorly implemented at first, but when school leaders were empowered to deliver it, the evidence has shown that tutoring does not just lead to improved attainment but can help to build pupils’ confidence and benefit their attendance, which is currently such a big problem in our schools. Funding for tutoring ran out in July this year, so will the Government commit to a national tutoring guarantee, so that every disadvantaged pupil can access the support they need? It would be a small step with a huge impact that would help to break down one of the biggest barriers to education in our society today.

Hon. Members have spoken about the huge crisis in our special educational needs and disabilities system, which affects one in six pupils. Only 17% of SEND pupils achieve grade 5 or above at GCSE in English and Maths, compared with 51% of other pupils, and they are much more likely to be suspended or permanently excluded. At the beginning of last year, when I visited Feltham young offender institution, the vast majority of young men there had special educational needs and were out of education for a lot of their childhood.

There is simply not enough mainstream support available at school. Coupled with a lack of specialist provision, that has left many children languishing at home without proper access to education. This is an enormous challenge that deserve many debates of its own, and we have had many well-subscribed debates in this place since the general election. Indeed, last month I secured an urgent question on the National Audit Office report that has been mentioned. I urge the Minister to look again at Liberal Democrat proposals for a new national body for SEND to support children with the most complex needs, for more training and specialists to identify needs early, and for speeding up the building of state special schools.

We know that SEND is closely related to poor mental health services. Our mental health services are struggling to keep pace with demand, and there is huge unmet need. Research conducted by the Liberal Democrats earlier this year revealed that over 300,000 children are stuck on a mental health waiting list. Many of those children will struggle to learn properly and will almost certainly experience their condition getting worse while they are waiting for support. With the number of children with a diagnosable mental health condition now hitting one in five, putting a dedicated mental health professional in every school, both primary and secondary, is urgent.

The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (David Williams) made a brief comment on the early years sector, which has not been talked about much in the debate. After years of Conservative underfunding of the early years sector, the Labour Government are introducing a national insurance rise that will hit many private and not-for-profit early years providers. The Early Years Alliance said this could

“push the sector to the brink of collapse.”

I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about whether she is pressing her colleagues in the Treasury to ensure that sufficient funding is available, so that parents do not have to foot the bill once again and more disadvantaged parents and their children are not forced out of early years provision, because the early years are when we can make the biggest impact on educational attainment.

I recognise that all these solutions cost money, but it is time we stopped seeing our children as a cost item in a profit and loss account. It is time we saw our children and young people and their education as one of the best investments we can make—an investment in the potential of every individual, in our society and in our economy. This Government cannot be serious about growth if they do not invest in educational opportunity.

Kinship Carers

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Wednesday 13th November 2024 Westminster Hall

[Alistair Strathern]

I absolutely echo those sentiments. It cannot be right that young people who have gone through exactly the same level of trauma or difficulties early in their life can get very different levels of support depending on the statutory context in which they are looked after. We must consider that as part of the wider reforms to social care.

It would be fair to say that there is a consensus in the Chamber today that although there are exciting announcements coming from the Government on kinship care, there is a real desire to ensure that we do justice to kinship carers in thinking about how we can go further. I am really glad that in the Budget, the Government clearly set out the need to think about children’s social care reform more widely. It has been kicked down the road for too long. As the independent review of children’s social care rightly laid out, we are presiding over a system that is not delivering good outcomes for young people and their wider family network, at great cost to the taxpayer. That cannot be allowed to continue.

It is important to me and, I can see, to everyone in the Chamber today that kinship carers are a big part of how we put that right. We know that outcomes with kinship carers are better. We know that for every thousand people we place in kinship care, the taxpayer saves £40 million, and that that cohort, being better supported, will go on to earn up to £20 million more than if they had been placed in private social care. That is simple maths—a cold, hard, brutal underlining of the scale of the opportunity we are missing if we do not do right by kinship carers.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The economic point that the hon. Gentleman makes is powerful. This is not just about the long-term savings he alluded to from the improved outcomes for these children; there are short-term savings to paying kinship carers an allowance universally—not just in 10 pilots across the country—and extending employment leave through the Employment Relations (Flexible Working) Act 2023. Will he join me in pushing his party’s Front Benchers to be more ambitious? That will help the Chancellor find many of the savings she is looking for.

[Alistair Strathern]

I hope the hon. Lady knows that I will always be an ambitious advocate for kinship carers. I have met my match in the Minister, who is a very ambitious advocate for them too. I look forward to working with her and the Secretary of State, who I know has a real ambition for kinship carers and children’s social care more generally, to ensure that we do right by those who have been failed all too often by the system we have inherited.

Oral Answers to Questions

Munira Wilson Excerpts

Monday 4th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

Two thirds of early years places are delivered by private and voluntary providers. Further to the shadow Education Secretary’s question, what assessment has the Department for Education made of the impact of last week’s national insurance rise on those providers? How much more does the Department expect that parents will have to pay in nursery fees? How much additional cost will the Department have to bear to fund existing and planned so-called free hours for parents?

[Bridget Phillipson]

As was announced at the Budget, we expect to provide £8.1 billion for the early years entitlements in 2025-26, which is an increase of about 30% on the previous year. We will continue to deliver the roll-outs, because this Government have sought to protect education priorities in the Budget.

On the hon. Member’s precise question, we are looking in more detail at what the changes mean for providers in the early years sector, and we will have more to say shortly. Alongside the changes to the national insurance employer contribution rate, we are increasing the employment allowance to £10,500 and are expanding this to all eligible employers, so smaller providers may pay no national insurance at all in 2025-26.

[Munira Wilson]

Alongside formal childcare, many parents want to have the option of spending more time at home with their babies in those precious early months that are so crucial for a child’s development. Does the Secretary of State agree that at less than half the minimum wage, statutory maternity pay is far from “excessive”? What discussions has she had with ministerial colleagues about boosting support for those parents who want to spend more time at home, rather than being rushed back to work, in order to give families real choice in how they care for their children?

[Bridget Phillipson]

I agree that it is important we get the balance right. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade are looking carefully, as part of our wider reforms to employment support and employment law, at what more we need to do around parental leave entitlements. I share the hon. Member’s concern about the comments we have heard from the now leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch), about maternity pay. I want to make sure that parents have choices about what works for them, what is best for them and what best supports their children’s development in those crucial early years.