Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

Neil O'Brien Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

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

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

The arguments around this issue are reasonably well known, so I will be brief. This discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there, which it did because a local inquiry would not have the powers that are needed. For example, a local inquiry cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men leading the local investigation in Greater Manchester resign because they felt they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry, and that there should be local inquiries instead.

However, there have been years during which those places could have held their own local inquiries, but they have not. In many cases, as is well known, local officials at different levels were part of the problem, and even part of the deflection, so they cannot be the people to fix it. In Keighley, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years, but even as Ministers argued in the House that there should be local inquiries, local politicians decided again not to hold one.

In these debates the Government often refer to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which was an important first step, but it was not—indeed, it was never intended to be—a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. IICSA looked at about half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were between 40 to 50 places where those gangs operated, and the inquiry touches on them very lightly and does not look at the places where there were the most severe problems. It means that victims in those places have never had a chance to be heard.

[Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)]

I welcome what the hon. Member says about the importance of victims, as they must be at the centre of all we do in this area. Will he outline whether he has met any victims of child sexual abuse in the past 12 months, and if he has, what they have said about the new clause? Is the new clause based on conversations with victims?

[Neil O’Brien]

The new clause is based on calls by victims for a national inquiry; I was about to come to that point. Having a proper national inquiry does not stop us from getting on and implementing any of the recommendations in the previous report. Indeed, awareness raising was one of the recommendations that was made. Without a national inquiry, we will clearly not get to the bottom of this issue, and people who looked the other way, or who covered up or deflected, will not be held to account for doing that. So far, nobody in authority has been held to account.

The Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester and the hon. Members for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) have backed some form of national inquiry, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that there should be a national inquiry if victims wanted one. Numerous victims are calling for an inquiry, so the real question is what we are waiting for.

[Tom Hayes]

Again, you are talking about victims—

[Neil O’Brien]

I am not the Chair.

[Tom Hayes]

I apologise; that is a good point. The hon. Member is talking about victims and what they want, so I return to the question that I asked: has he met victims of child sexual abuse when tabling this new clause—yes or no?

[Neil O’Brien]

As a constituency MP I have met victims of sexual abuse, yes, and it is clear, if people have been following the debate, that victims are calling for an inquiry. Indeed, numerous people in the Labour party agree that we should have a proper inquiry, for all the reasons that Oldham originally asked for one, namely that it does not have the powers locally to get to the truth and to get justice for the victims. The new clause would create a national inquiry and we hope that at some point the Government will support it so that justice can be done and those who have let victims down can finally be held to account.

[Tom Hayes]

I want to press the point about whether any victims of child sexual abuse have been directly consulted about the proposed new clause. Before I became an MP I ran a service to support victims of child sexual abuse. I have sat with survivors and listened to some of the stories they have shared about the worst things that could happen to a human being, in order to understand the difficulties and trauma that they are experiencing. I know that rebuilding their life will involve many long years of painstaking support alongside many types of services, and I know that what they need most is the implementation of the national inquiry that has already concluded, which heard from many victims of child sexual abuse.

Having sat with and listened to victims of abuse, my big concern is that not implementing those recommendations will be a signal to them that all they have shared and said—after significant difficulty—will have been discarded. That will make people who have gone through awful experiences that have made them feel as though they lack dignity, once again feel as though the system that was there to support and listen to them has let them down, and that as a consequence they are not worthy of the dignity that, as human beings, they really ought to be entitled to.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is wrong to pretend that IICSA was a report into the grooming gangs. It was not; it was never intended to be. It looked a tiny handful of places, so many of the people who were affected by that scandal have never had the chance to have their story told. It has never been clear why having a new national inquiry would prevent us from implementing any of those previous things—it obviously would not. The argument that the Government cannot do two things at the same time is clearly wrong, so it cannot be used as an excuse not to listen to all those who have never had the chance to tell their story.

[Tom Hayes]

I believe that the Minister may be coming to that point very soon, and I am excited to hear your response to what she says—

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

The hon. Member is in danger of literally saying it is too expensive to get to the truth. He just said that the cost of a national inquiry was the obstacle to having one. I really hope that he will rethink that point.

[Tom Hayes]

I disagree strongly with the hon. Member. He knows exactly what I said, and he is choosing to put words into my mouth, as he has chosen to put words into the mouths of many other Committee members. If he wants to play that game, let us talk about whether he has focused properly on child sexual abuse in his time as an MP, quite apart from whether he spoke with any victims or survivors before tabling the amendment.

The hon. Member has been in this House since 8 June 2017, a total of 2,849 days. It took him 2,801 days before he spoke in Parliament for the first time about child sexual abuse. He may say, “Of course, I was a Minister for some of that time,” so I calculated the amount of time that you were a Minister. It is approximately 25% of your total time as an MP. I think it is important, obviously—

--- Later in debate ---

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said that we needed another national inquiry on grooming gangs because the IICSA inquiry “barely touches on them”. He has repeated that on multiple occasions today. IICSA, as is common practice in a public inquiry, involved a series of smaller inquiries of investigations of different strands. One of those inquiries was child sexual exploitation by organised networks. The inquiry into organised networks, the entire focus of which was grooming gangs, took two years and reported three years ago, in February 2022.

[Neil O’Brien]

Could the hon. Lady say how many different places it looked at?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will come to that. First, I make the point that I have the report in my hands; it is an inch thick, printed double-sided and it is nearly 200 pages. That is the specific inquiry into organised networks. Its contents are horrific, and I hope that by the end of my contribution, we will cease to hear the shadow Minister referring to the fact that it “barely touches” on grooming gangs.

For clarity, organised networks that conduct child sexual exploitation, as anyone who has carried out work in child protection will know, are grooming gangs. Organised networks are defined in this report as

“two or more individuals…who are known to (or associated with) one another”.

Section C.3 of the report sets out carefully why that definition was used. In comparison, new clause 15 seeks to define grooming gangs as a group of at least three adult males. As we saw in the convictions of women involved in grooming gangs in Rotherham, Newcastle and elsewhere, involvement in grooming gangs is not limited to men. Sadly, several of the cases mentioned in the investigation into grooming gangs make it clear that they are not always adults, as older children and teenagers can also be involved in grooming.

A further justification for another inquiry, as we heard from the shadow Minister, was that the previous inquiry covered just half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated—namely, the areas covered by Durham county council, the City and County of Swansea council, Warwickshire county council, St Helens council in Merseyside, the London borough of Tower Hamlets and Bristol city council. The shadow Minister knows, I assume, that that was a deliberate sampling of local authorities from across England and Wales, and they were selected not because grooming gangs operated there—I do not think that was necessarily even known at the time of selection—but to consider a range of features including size, demography, geography and social characteristics. It was to illustrate different policies, practices and performance. It was a deliberate choice not to look again at areas like Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford, which had already been the subject of independent investigation. Sampling, and looking at particular case studies like this, is very common and good practice in public inquiries. The fact that there were cases of child sexual exploitation by gangs in all six of the case study areas clearly indicated how common and pervasive this disgusting crime is.

On Second Reading, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), implied that there was new information that child sexual exploitation takes place in many areas. He said:

“We now believe that as many as 50 towns could have been affected”.—[Official Report, 16 January 2025; Vol. 760, c. 564.]

But as the previous specific inquiry made clear three years ago, on page 4, when it comes to grooming gangs:

“Any denial of the scale of child sexual exploitation—either at national level or locally in England and Wales—must be challenged.”

In looking at whether new clause 15 is a rerun of questions IICSA already considered in the previous specific inquiry into grooming gangs, it is helpful to cross-refer the contents of new clause 15 with the scope of the previous investigations into grooming gangs, which is set out on page 148 of this report. New clause 15(2)(a) seeks an inquiry into grooming gangs to

“identify common patterns of behaviour and offending”.

But the scope of the previous grooming gangs inquiry states that it will investigate “the nature” of sexual exploitation by grooming gangs.

New clause 15(2)(b) and (c) seek another inquiry to look at the

“type, extent and volume of crimes”

and “the number of victims”. The specific inquiry looked at the “extent” of sexual exploitation.

New clause 15(2)(e) seeks a new inquiry to identify failings by

“(i) police,

(ii) local authorities,

(iii) prosecutors,

(iv) charities,

(v) political parties,

(vi) local…government,

(vii) healthcare providers…or

(viii) other agencies or bodies”.

But the grooming gangs inquiry investigated and considered the institutional responses to the sexual exploitation of children, and that specific inquiry also examined the extent to which

“children who were subjected to child sexual exploitation were known to local authorities and other public authorities such as law enforcement agencies, schools and/or the NHS”.

It also examined the extent to which

“relevant public authorities…effectively identified the risk of child sexual exploitation in communities and took action to prevent it”.

It examined the extent to which

“the response of the constituent parts of the criminal justice system was appropriate in cases of child sexual exploitation”.

The inquiry into grooming gangs heard from complainants, academics, local authorities, police officers, voluntary sector representatives, Government officials and representatives from victim support and campaign groups—a list that looks very similar to that set out at new clause 15(2)(e).

New clause 15(2)(g) seeks to “identify good practice” in protecting children. Was that left out of the previous inquiry? No, because paragraph 2.5 of the scope of the investigation makes it clear that the inquiry would also examine

“effective strategies…implemented to prevent child sexual exploitation in the future, and to monitor the safety of vulnerable children including missing children”.

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston accused the Government of not wanting to

“hear the voices of the victims.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 951.].

The new clause compounds the last Government’s crime of not listening to the victims when they had the chance to implement the recommendations of the specific national grooming gangs inquiry and the wider IICSA recommendations.

What new clause 15—the hon. Gentleman’s blueprint for a new inquiry—does not include is any requirement to look at the extent to which recommendations in previous reports and reviews were implemented by relevant public authorities at national and local levels. That requirement was in the previous grooming gangs inquiry, which was an attempt to build on learning rather than to be a rerun of previous inquiries. The previous grooming gangs inquiry notes that more than 400 previous recommendations were considered in this, as well as those arising from other recent reports and inquiries. This would be an obvious inclusion in any future inquiry, unless we did not want to draw attention to the previous Government’s failure to carry out a single one of the recommendations of the specific investigation into grooming gangs, or in the wider independent inquiry into child sexual abuse more broadly.

The three main functions of public inquiries are to investigate what happened, why it happened, and what can be done to prevent it happening again. Inquiries can make recommendations. What they cannot do is implement those recommendations; that is our job. Professor Alexis Jay, who knows more about this than anyone on this Committee, does not call for another national inquiry. She says that a new inquiry would cause further delay.

Having spent seven of my 17 years as a barrister on a public inquiry—although not into grooming gangs or the broader IICA—I can say quite forcefully that there is a universal principle here. Public inquiries cost time and enormous amounts of public money, but the biggest tab that they run up is in the hope that they give to victims—the hope that what they suffered will not be suffered in future by others. We must pay our debt to the victims by fully responding to the recommendations and implementing them where we can. If we call for inquiry after inquiry along the same lines, we are undermining the whole system of public inquiries, including public trust in them and public tolerance for the resources of the state that they demand. Therefore, rather than the gesture politics of rerunning an inquiry without the evidence and data that we need, it is the Government’s approach that makes sense, with Baroness Louise Casey’s audit to fill in the gaps that have already been identified by the previous inquiry.

This Government are setting up a new victims and survivors panel not just to guide Ministers on the design, delivery and implementation of plans on IICSA, but to produce wider work around child sexual exploitation and abuse. In the policing and crime Bill, they are making it mandatory to report abuse and will make it an offence to fail to report, or to cover up, child sexual abuse, as well as introducing further measures to tackle those organising online child sex abuse. They are legislating to make grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing for child sexual offences. They are already drawing up a duty of candour as part of the long-awaited Hillsborough law. And they are overhauling the information and evidence that is gathered on child sexual abuse and exploitation to implement the first recommendation of IICSA on a single core dataset on child abuse and protection.

New clause 15(2)(d) seeks to identify the ethnicity of members of grooming gangs. Sections B.5 and H.5 of the 2022 inquiry into grooming gangs identified the widespread failure to record the ethnicity of perpetrators and victims and the inconsistency of definitions in the data, which meant that the limited research available relied on poor-quality data.

Recommendation 5 from the report in February 2022 relates to child sexual exploitation data and states that the data must include

“the sex, ethnicity and disability of both the victim and perpetrator”.

In the final list of IICSA recommendations from October 2022, it was the first recommendation—a single core set of data. We do not have a core dataset, and the ethnicity data that was published in November from police forces has been found to be haphazard, because there is not a proper system for collecting data. It is this Government who have committed to gathering and publishing new ethnicity data, and it is this Government who are providing backing for local inquiries that can delve into local detail and deliver more locally relevant answers and change than a lengthy national inquiry of the type that I was involved in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will not, because I am nearly finished—the right hon. Gentleman will then be able to speak about whatever he wants. Grabbing at headlines to call for an inquiry to address the same questions already asked in a national inquiry at the expense of a Bill that will protect children—

[Neil O'Brien]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine Atkinson]

I will not. The hon. Gentleman will have every opportunity to speak. I am nearly finished.

It is important to imagine the case had Conservative colleagues been successful—new clause 15 is a weak echo of that reckless shout for attention on Second Reading, and a shameful reminder. Alongside all the provisions in the Bill, which they agree will keep children safer, they should get behind the actions that the Home Secretary and the Minister for Safeguarding are driving on the issue of grooming gangs—real action, which means a great deal to me and many others in the Committee. Knowing the horrific abuse that girls from my city have gone through, I am hugely thankful for those actions. Opposition Members in Committee should not just withdraw the new clause, but apologise for risking protections for children by recklessly chasing headlines in this way.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil O’Brien]

I want to point out a tension between the arguments that we have heard. One type of argument says that the job is done; there is nothing more to find out. It dismisses calls for further work as “gesture politics”—that is one phrase that we heard this morning. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said that the grooming gangs had been “fully investigated”. I do not believe that, nor do the victims—in fact, not a single official has been held to account. More importantly perhaps, the Government do not believe it either. They argue that more work is needed—the disagreement is simply whether there should be local inquiries rather than a national inquiry. Members continue to make arguments that the Government were perhaps making at the start of the year, but that is not where the Government are now.

[Tom Hayes]

On the hon. Gentleman’s point that members of this Committee have said, in so many words, that the job is done and we do not have anything more to learn, I want to be categorical in saying that those are not the words that I use and I did not imply that in anything that I said. I look to Committee colleagues to nod if they agree. All people who spoke today have nodded to affirm that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is not a true representation of what in fact they were saying or even implying, so may I please ask him to withdraw that statement?

[Neil O’Brien]

The people who read the transcript of this debate or perhaps have been listening to it at home can judge for themselves whether what I said was a fair summary of the arguments put forward by Government Members.

[Catherine McKinnell]

On the point about putting words in people’s mouths, nobody has said this is job done—quite the contrary. What we have consistently said is that we do not believe another national inquiry is needed. The Alexis Jay report took seven years, engaged 7,000 victims and had 15 separate strands. In the last 12 years, we have had hundreds of inquiries, serious case reviews and 600 recommendations. It is time for action. It is time to put this into practice and provide the justice that these victims deserve. That is what this Government are focused on doing.

[Neil O’Brien]

I wonder whether the Minister agreed with the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen, who said that the grooming gangs had been “fully investigated”. Does she agree with that? I am happy to take another intervention if she does. She does not want to stand up and say that she agrees with her hon. Friend, so the tension I pointed out is real. On one hand there is an argument that there is nothing more to be found out; everyone who should be held to account has been held to account; and we must not go back into it—there is no need to go back into it. On the other hand there is the Government’s admission that we need more local inquiries.

This whole discussion did not start with some person on social media. This whole conversation started because Oldham council formally asked for a national inquiry into what happened there, and it did so because it did not have, at local level, the powers needed: it cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath or requisition evidence. It was that request from a council—a good and sensible request—that started this discussion. I have already listed some of the Labour people who have argued for a national inquiry. I hope that in the end they will win the argument in the Labour party, but until then, I want to put the new clause to the vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 19—Trust Capacity Fund—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, establish a Trust Capacity Fund.

(2) The purpose of the Trust Capacity Fund will be to support the growth of multi-academy trusts.

(3) The Trust Capacity Fund may provide funding to maintained schools and academy trusts which—

(a) are considered by the Education and Skills Funding Agency to be of sound financial health; and

(b) have an eligible growth project that has been approved by the Secretary of State.

(4) The Secretary of State may, by regulations, specify applications for funding to which the Trust Capacity Fund will give particular regard, which may include applications from trusts—

(a) taking on or formed from schools which have received specified judgements in their most recent inspections; or

(b) taking on or comprising schools in Education Investment Areas.

(5) The Secretary of State must provide the Trust Capacity Fund with such funding and resources as are required for the carrying out of its duties.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to establish a Trust Capacity Fund to support the growth of multi-academy trusts.

[Neil O’Brien]

The proposed new clauses press the Government to restore some schemes they have cut, namely the academy conversion support grant and the trust capacity fund. The latter spent about £126 million over the last Parliament, helping to grow and deepen strong trusts, helping them to do more to help their schools, and helping to create a self-improving system. Unfortunately, the fund was ended on 1 January this year. Its closure is a real loss and there is uncertainty now about who is responsible for school improvement in the Government’s vision. Is that still to be trust-led, or will it be led by RISE from the centre? What happens if ideas from RISE conflict with those of a trust?

The removal of that funding sharpens the sense of a shift away from trusts as the engine for school improvement. The Confederation of School Trusts has said that this funding

“has been very successful in enabling trusts to support maintained schools that need help, especially in areas with a history of poor education outcomes…That will become more difficult to do now. Trust leaders will be especially angry that Ministers have scrapped this summer’s funding round: trusts spent considerable time and effort creating bids and have been waiting for a decision for four months…School trusts have a wealth of experience in school improvement but sharing that effectively takes time and money, and we need to make sure that the wider school sector doesn’t suffer from this decision.”

The confederation also says that it is “incredibly disappointed” at the decision to withdraw the academy conversion grant. It says:

“Ending this grant will leave, in particular, smaller primary schools very vulnerable and without the financial and educational sustainability that comes from being part of a trust. It is a short-sighted decision that will weaken the school system.”

It adds that that will have

“clear consequences for the strength and sustainability of our school system…This is not a neutral decision and will impact the capacity of the system to keep improving.”

Forum Strategy, another membership organisation for school trust leaders, has said of the decision to cut this funding:

“It is difficult to see the vision or strategy that leads to these decisions, or what it means for making the most of the capacity and expertise of the school-led improvement system.”

I hope that Ministers will listen to school leaders and reverse the decisions, as the proposed new clauses suggest.

[Catherine McKinnell]

We have made it clear that the Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity, by driving high and rising standards, so that all children are supported to achieve and thrive. The Government are focused on improving outcomes for all children, regardless of the type of school they attend. Our energies and funding are tilted towards that, including through the new regional improvement for standards and excellence teams.

Nevertheless, we want high-quality trusts to continue to grow where schools wish to join them and there is a strong case for them to do so. We know that where schools have worked together, sharing their knowledge and expertise, as happens in our best multi-academy trusts and best local authorities, we can secure the highest standards and best outcomes for our children.

We will continue to consider applications from trusts that want to transfer their schools to a high-quality academy trust, or where there is a need locally to form new trusts through consolidation or merger. In September, the Government were supporting a higher number of schools through the process of converting to academy status than at any point under the previous Government, since at least 2018. Voluntary conversion remains a choice for schools. The Government believe that the benefits, including the financial benefits, of joining a strong structure are well understood, and for most schools and trusts that will mean that the case for converting will still outweigh the costs.

It was the previous Government who decided to significantly curtail the availability of the conversion grant—a decision that did not have any negative impact on the rate of voluntary academisation. While I recognise that the sector welcomed the trust capacity fund, the truth is that most multi-academy trusts that expanded in recent years did so without accessing the limited fund, including those that applied to the fund but were unsuccessful.

The current financial health of schools and academies suggests that the cost of conversion, where there is a strong case to do so, is likely to be affordable for them. The latest published figures show that the vast majority of academy trusts and local authority maintained schools are in cumulative surplus or breaking even. We do, however, keep this under review.

Let me also make it clear that, where necessary, and in cases of the most serious concern, the Government will continue to intervene and transfer schools to new management, and we will continue to provide support and funding for trusts that take on those schools eligible for intervention.

For the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.

[Neil O’Brien]

It is nice to hear from the Minister that, following our decision to increase funding per pupil by 11% in real terms over the last Parliament, most trusts are in surplus or breaking even. None the less, I hope that Ministers will reconsider this matter. There has been something of a change in tone in recent weeks from the Government, particularly regarding academisation, which they say is now going to happen normally in certain cases, so I hope that Ministers will rethink some of their decisions about funding to enable that to happen, and to enable the best trusts to grow, to become stronger and to do even more to turn around our struggling schools. However, on this occasion, we will withdraw the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 18

School Trust CEO Programme

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make provision for the delivery of a programme of development for Chief Executive Officers of large multi-academy trusts (‘the School Trust CEO Programme’).

(2) The School Trust CEO Programme shall be provided by—

(a) the National Institute of Teaching; or

(b) a different provider nominated by the Secretary of State.

(3) The purposes of the School Trust CEO Programme shall include, but not be limited to—

(a) building the next generation of CEOs and system architects;

(b) providing the knowledge, insight and practice to ensure CEOs can run successful, sustainable, thriving trusts that develop as anchor institutions in their communities;

(c) building a network of CEOs to improve practice in academy trusts and shape the system; and

(d) nurturing the talents of CEOs to lead and grow large multi-academy trusts, especially in areas where such trusts are most needed.

(4) The Secretary of State must provide the School Trust CEO Programme with such funding and resources as are required for the carrying out of its duties.”—(Neil O’Brien.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to provide a School Trust CEO Programme.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

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

New clause 18 essentially raises the same issues as new clauses 17 and 19, but for a different programme—in this case, the trust leadership programme, which helps teachers and heads move up to running a trust and helps to create a self-improving system. A huge amount of work has gone into getting it right in recent years. It has been designed by the profession. It really has had a lot of work put into it, and it is a product of school leaders, not just the Government.

My understanding is that the programme will end after the current cohort completes it, and that there is no plan for another cohort. After all the work that has gone into the programme, that seems a real shame. The new clause would require Ministers to commit to the programme for further intakes and to put it on a permanent basis. I hope that Ministers will make that commitment, and that we can get good news from them today about the continuation of this really important programme.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The Government are committed to supporting the development of leaders at all levels. As such, we have announced a review of national professional qualifications, which are evidence-based qualifications available to leaders at all levels. The review will include consideration of the training needs of those leading several schools, including large multi-academy trusts. However, committing to a specific service or provider in the Bill would contravene civil service governance procedures and public procurement legislation respectively, so we will not put in place a legal obligation to provide training or commit funding for the development of the chief executive officers of large multi-academy trusts. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.

[Neil O’Brien]

The new clause makes it clear that there would be a choice about who would provide the scheme. We heard from the Minister that there is a review of national professional qualifications going on. I will be happy to take an intervention if she is happy to tell us a date by which we will find out the results of that review. I do not know when school leaders who are currently benefiting from, or hoping to benefit from, this very important programme, designed by the sector, will find out from Ministers what its future will be. It sounds like Ministers are saying that it will not be until the review is completed, so I now have a question about when that will be and when we will have a definitive answer one way or the other. I wonder whether the Minister will consider writing to me to tell us roughly when the review will be complete. She is sort of nodding, but I am not going to probe the point.

We will withdraw the new clause for now, but this is a wonderful scheme and a crucial part of the self-improving system, and I hope that, whatever happens at the end of the review, something along these lines will be maintained. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 20

Approved free schools and university training colleges in pre-opening

“The Secretary of State must make provision for the opening of all free schools and university training colleges whose applications were approved prior to October 2024.”—(Neil O’Brien.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to proceed with the opening of free schools whose opening was paused in October 2024.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

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

The new clause presses Ministers to un-pause the final free schools. In October Ministers “paused” plans to open 44 new state schools, including three sixth-form colleges backed by Eton and, more importantly, by the brilliant Star Trust in Dudley, Middlesbrough and Oldham. Many of the proposals have had years of work put into them, and they are the passion projects of huge numbers of teachers and school leaders. They have the potential to do tremendous good in communities across the country, including some deprived communities. The new clause encourages the Government to end the damaging uncertainty for those schools, which have now been in limbo for a long time.

Free schools generally have fantastic progress scores, which are a quarter of a grade higher across all grades than would be expected given their intakes. That is exceptional across an entire type of school—an amazing result. When we look at Progress 8 scores in this country, free schools dominate the top of the league table. That is an amazing achievement from these passion projects—these labours of love—that have been created by teachers to help communities. We hope that Ministers will unblock the proposals soon, and end the uncertainty, so will the Minister give the Committee some sense of when these schools can expect a decision?

[Stephen Morgan]

I understand the hon. Member’s desire to ensure that approved free school projects, including two university technical college projects, open as planned, and I acknowledge the work that trusts and local authorities undertake to support free school projects to open. However, accepting the new clause would commit the Secretary of State to opening all projects in the current pipeline, regardless of whether they are still needed or represent value for money.

A range of factors can create barriers to a new school opening successfully, including insufficient pupil numbers to fill the school, or not being able to find a suitable site. That is why the Government have established practice of reviewing free school projects on an ongoing basis. As a result, over the lifetime of the programme, nearly 150 projects have been withdrawn by their sponsor trusts or cancelled by the Department.

The review that this Government announced in October 2024 has a strong focus on the need for places, and will ensure that we only open viable schools that offer value for taxpayers’ money. It would be wrong to spend funding on new schools that cannot be financially viable while existing schools urgently need that funding to improve the condition of their buildings. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.

[Neil O’Brien]

I am disappointed to hear that from the Minister, and we are also disappointed not to hear any date for when the schools, which all those people—people with an incredible track record in our deprived communities—have worked so hard to bring into existence, will open. Will he commit to write to us to say when those people can expect a decision? The uncertainty, which is so damaging, has been going on for so long. At the moment it is without end, and no one knows when they will get an answer from the Government. I wonder whether the Minister write to us—or, more to the point, to those people—to say when they can at least expect an answer one way or the other.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 21

School attendance: general duties on local authorities

“In Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Act 1996 (school attendance), after section 443 insert—

‘School attendance: registered pupils, offences etc

443A School attendance: general duties on local authorities in England

(1) A local authority in England must exercise their functions with a view to—

(a) promoting regular attendance by registered pupils at schools in the local authority’s area, and

(b) reducing the number and duration of absences of registered pupils from schools in that area.

(2) In exercising their functions, a local authority in England must have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in relation to school attendance.’”—(Neil O’Brien.)

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Neil O’Brien]

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

[The Chair]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

New clause 22—School attendance policies—

“In Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Act 1996 (school attendance), after section 443 insert—

‘443A School attendance policies

(1) The proprietor of a school in England must ensure—

(a) that policies designed to promote regular attendance by registered pupils are pursued at the school, and

(b) that those policies are set out in a written document (an “attendance policy”).

(2) An attendance policy must in particular include details of—

(a) the practical procedures to be followed at the school in relation to attendance,

(b) the measures in place at the school to promote regular attendance by its registered pupils,

(c) the responsibilities of particular members of staff in relation to attendance,

(d) the action to be taken by staff if a registered pupil fails to attend the school regularly, and

(e) if relevant, the school’s strategy for addressing any specific concerns identified in relation to attendance.

(3) The proprietor must ensure—

(a) that the attendance policy and its contents are generally made known within the school and to parents of registered pupils at the school, and

(b) that steps are taken at least once in every school year to bring the attendance policy to the attention of all those parents and pupils and all persons who work at the school (whether or not for payment).

(4) In complying with the duties under this section, the proprietor must have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in relation to school attendance.’”

New clause 23—Penalty notices: regulations—

“In section 444B of the Education Act 1996 (penalty notices: attendance), after subsection (1) insert—

‘(1A) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (1), regulations under subsection (1) may make provision in relation to England—

(a) as to the circumstances in which authorised officers must consider giving a penalty notice;

(b) for or in connection with co-ordination arrangements between local authorities and neighbouring local authorities (where appropriate), the police and authorised officers.’”

New clause 24—Academies: regulations as to granting a leave of absence—

“(1) Section 551 of the Education Act 1996 (regulations as to duration of school day etc) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for ‘to which this section applies’ substitute ‘mentioned in subsection (2)’.

(3) In subsection (2), omit ‘to which this section applies’.

(4) After subsection (2) insert—

‘(3) Regulations may also make provision with respect to the granting of leave of absence from any schools which are Academies not already falling within subsection (2)(c).’”

[Neil O’Brien]

This series of new clauses on attendance is intended, as with other amendments on discipline, to add to the Bill content on some of the biggest issues that are facing our schools, and which our teachers consistently rate as among the most important issues facing the school system. Although there has been recovery since the nadir of the post-pandemic period, as I look at attendance figures every week I worry that we are topping out at a level that is below pre-pandemic norms. For the current academic year we are at 18.7% persistent absence, compared with 10.9% pre-pandemic. That is a huge increase. When debating proposals in Westminster Hall from people who wanted to make it easier to take children out of schools, we and Ministers strongly agreed about the powerful negative impact that can have. Even small changes in attendance can have unbelievably large effects on overall achievement.

I will not labour the new clauses, because I am conscious of the time we have today and the need for many Members to get in. They were tabled to emphasise how important this issue is. I am sure Ministers agree; we are really just encouraging them to try to do more. In the most recent data, unauthorised absence is slightly up on last year. I am left with a feeling that something big is needed on this front. The new clauses are really just a way of encouraging Ministers to push hard on this vital issue.

[Stephen Morgan]

New clauses 21 and 22 seek to place new duties on local authorities and schools with regard to school attendance. Absence from school is one of the biggest barriers to success for children and young people, and has soared over recent years. We inherited a legacy of record levels of poor attendance, which impacts the life chances of all our young people, particularly the most disadvantaged. We are determined to work with the sector to tackle that legacy. That includes working with schools, which are uniquely placed to address the issue, and local authorities, which play a key role in supporting pupils whose absence is more entrenched and who face out-of-school barriers to attendance.

We naturally want to see consistency in this area, and to ensure that parents clearly understand how they will be supported if their child is having difficulties. However, we do not need the new clauses to do that. Both schools and local authorities are already subject to the statutory guidance on attendance introduced last summer. Since then, we have been supporting schools through a network of attendance hubs and our recently released attendance toolkit, and local authorities through our team of attendance advisers. Both have made significant progress in improving the support that they offer to children on attendance.

The challenge is to build on that progress, working in partnership. We will continue to ensure that teachers and staff are equipped to make school the best place to be for every child, by delivering free breakfast clubs in every primary school so that every child is on time and ready to learn, by delivering better mental health support through access to professionals, and by improving inclusivity in mainstream schools. We will support local authorities through the £263 million in new funding that we have already announced in the new children’s social care prevention grant, so that families can get the support they need, when they need it.

Schools and local authorities understand their responsibilities to promote school attendance, and we will provide them with the tools that they need to fulfil those responsibilities. The new clauses are not necessary for us to do that. Therefore, for the reasons I have outlined, I kindly ask the shadow Minister not to press them.

New clause 23 relates to the circumstances in which a fixed penalty notice for school absence may be issued. The right approach to tackling school absence is one of support first. One of the most important things that parents do for their children’s learning, wellbeing and life chances is ensuring that they go to school every day, and that they are well enough to do so. We want to support the system and support parents to provide help where needed to overcome attendance problems. However, there are cases where support has been provided and not engaged with, and cases where support would not be appropriate. In such cases, there is a range of legal interventions available to ensure that children are not deprived of their right to an education.

It is important that the system treats families equally and that there is consistency across the country in how fixed penalty notices are considered, but the new clause is not needed to achieve that. The previous Government introduced a national threshold for considering when a fixed penalty notice should be issued, and an expectation that support should be offered first in cases other than term-time holidays. This Government have continued that policy. On the basis that neither this Government nor the previous one considered the new clause to be necessary, I ask hon. Members not to press it.

Finally, I turn to new clause 24. I appreciate hon. Members’ concern on this matter, and their desire for academies to follow rules on granting leave of absence. One of the many ways in which schools encourage regular attendance is by making it clear to parents—