Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [ Lords ] (First sitting)
Neil O'Brien ExcerptsThursday 13th March 2025
(11 months, 3 weeks ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025 View all Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Act 2025 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 13 March 2025 - (13 Mar 2025)
Janet Daby
It sounds as though that college is doing excellent work. The Bill is part of the process of delivering Skills England. It is our intention, following the Bill’s Royal Assent, to make commencement regulations promptly to bring into force the provisions that transfer IfATE’s functions, as well as the powers to transfer its assets and liabilities to the Secretary of State and to deliver those services through Skills England.
Skills England will be very different from IfATE, as I have mentioned. It will bring IfATE’s functions together with others that are not currently in statute to identify skills needs and to work with regional partners to ensure that they are being met. By bringing together those different functions in a single organisation, we can make a more responsive skills system that acts fast on the evidence to address skills gaps, uninterrupted by organisational boundaries, administrative hurdles and imperfect data flows. That would not be possible if the key functions were split across Skills England and IfATE. Clauses 1 to 3 are essential to achieving that transformation, so I commend them to the Committee.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. The Opposition have three main concerns about the Bill, which are all relevant to this group. First, there were good reasons why standards setting was put at arm’s length and closer to employers. As we heard from Members on both sides of the House of Lords, this Bill is a centralisation. Alongside other changes that the Government are making, it risks directly damaging the status of the qualifications.
Secondly, the Government are doing several things that will make it less likely that businesses will take on apprenticeships. Rather than fixing the problems, the Government are reorganising. Skills England will be the 13th skills body in 50 years. The Government are abolishing IfATE, which was created only seven years ago. This is yet more reorganisation, rather than focusing on the real issues. IfATE will now follow a long list of predecessors, including the Manpower Services Commission, the Learning and Skills Council, the Skills Funding Agency, skills advisory panels, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, training and enterprise councils and more, into the lengthening history of skills acronyms. We have a bad history of institutional churn in this country generally, and particularly in this area.
Thirdly, we have real concerns that this reorganisation of the machinery of government will lead to harmful delays in addressing some of the most important strategic issues that we face. Those concerns are in fact borne out by the Government’s impact assessment.
As the Minister just said, the first three clauses are all about abolishing IfATE. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which transfers functions from IfATE to the Secretary of State. It does not transfer them to Skills England, but to the Secretary of State.
The words “Secretary of State” appear, amazingly, 90 times in this short Bill. That is one reason why the Bill has come in for criticism from a number of different sides of politics. Instead of setting up Skills England as an independent body, which is what a lot of people—including many in the Labour party—assumed it would be, it is going to be part of the Department for Education.
In its briefing on the Bill, the Construction Industry Training Board noted that this was
“contrary to the previous characterisation of Skills England that was outlined in the…King’s Speech…and contrary to the vision for Skills England to be an independent body, established in law, with a cross-governmental role”.
Obviously, those two points are linked. If it is going to be cross-government, it is easier for it to be independent of the DFE rather than part of one Department.
The CITB makes an important point. IfATE existed to serve all employers, both public and private, and across every Department. In contrast, Skills England will be firmly part of the DFE. The chief executive officer of Skills England will be a job share between the two civil servants who currently run the post-16 skills bit of the DFE.
Likewise, the Institute of the Motor Industry, representing employers and professionals across the UK automotive sector, says in its evidence to this Committee that it has
“significant concerns about the abolition of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education…and the transfer of its functions to Skills England.”
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Did the shadow Minister note the submission from the Association of Colleges, which offered very strong support for the Bill? As it represents a large proportion of providers of this education, its views should be taken into account.
Neil O’Brien
I saw that, and I wonder whether the hon. Lady noted in that submission the organisation’s pretty strong criticisms of the Government’s decision to cut adult skills spending. That is an example of what I was just talking about. Instead of addressing the real issues, we have reorganisation. I was not going to bring up the document from the Association of Colleges, but I am glad that the hon. Lady has.
Let me return to the Institute of the Motor Industry. Its evidence states:
“Without dedicated attention to the unique challenges faced by the automotive industry, Skills England risks creating further disconnection between education policy and real-world workforce demands.”
It talks about the risk of losing employer-led standards:
“Transitioning to Skills England could introduce additional confusion and delays, undermining apprenticeship approvals and disrupting funding streams critical to maintaining employer confidence.”
In fairness, that is what the Government’s impact assessment said. It stated that the issues around transition are likely to lead to delays, which will have a real-world impact. I will come back to that point in a second.
The criticisms from different people in industry of the move away from independence and employer ownership —those two things go hand in hand—take us back to the origin of IfATE. It was set up alongside the introduction of the apprenticeship levy. It was, in a sense, a quid pro quo. There was employers’ money and, in return, employer ownership of the system, for the first time. The move away from this being something independent and properly arm’s length to it being run by a bit of the DFE, by just some DFE officials, is a move away from that sense of employer ownership.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will the shadow Minister explain why he does not think that the rationalisation of unelected and largely unaccountable arm’s length bodies—quangos—is a bad thing? Why should the Secretary of State not be the person who is held accountable for post-16 skills education?
Neil O’Brien
That is a perfectly good question. Of course, this Government are a big fan of quangos and have, I think, created—net—28 more quangos since it came to office. Some can be the right thing to do, so I am not necessarily criticising the Government for that. In this case—I cannot remember if the hon. Lady was around when we were creating the apprenticeship levy—the reason why it was made independent of Government and an employer-owned body was that we were, for the first time, creating something that is quite common in the rest of Europe, the apprenticeship levy.
The levy is intended to stop—to be blunt—good employers who invest in their workforce and the skills of their workforce being taken advantage of by those who do not. That meant doing something controversial, which in effect was requiring them to pay into the levy—in many ways, it is like a tax—but they could get their money back through the apprenticeship levy. However, in return for that big change, requiring larger employers to put their own money into skills, we wanted to ensure that the whole thing would be truly employer-led, rather than politician-led.
Of course, current Ministers are brilliant—this is not any criticism of them—but we legislate for the ages, not for whoever is currently the Minister. Ministers change, and sometimes there have been instances—I am horrified to tell the Committee—where politicians have foibles or funny ideas of their own, which are not necessarily reflected in the wishes of employers and what they want from the skills system. That was why we put the system more into the hands of employers.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
It is interesting to hear the shadow Minister speak about business’s view of the apprenticeship levy. When I speak to businesses in my constituency, they tell me that the apprenticeship levy was not flexible enough and was not working, and it was preventing them giving opportunities to young people. That is exactly why so many businesses have welcomed the changes that this Government are bringing in. Has he not heard the exact same from businesses in his constituency?
Neil O’Brien
Even before we set up the levy, I always heard employers expressing concerns about the idea of a levy of any kind. In many instances, they would prefer just to keep their money and not spend it on skills at all. The fact that they were not spending on skills is the reason why we brought in a levy—it was quite a contentious thing, and quite a centrist thing in lots of ways.
As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in its recent paper on the Government’s proposals to change the levy, the danger, if we start to make these things too open-ended, is that we completely collapse the concept. It notes what happened with things before, such as Train to Gain, where what we end up with is pure dead-weight—we get zero additionality.
To reduce the idea to absurdity, if we were to say that employers can spend the apprenticeship levy on whatever they like, there is no point in having a levy, is there? That is because we would have just gone around in a circle. There is no point taking money off people and saying, “You can do whatever you want.” The whole point of containing that expenditure to apprenticeships was, as well as wanting to prioritise apprenticeships, to avoid the very real problems that the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out with previous schemes such as Train to Gain, where we ended up with huge amounts of dead-weight. It did not work, and the amount of money spent by employers on such things went down.
I am absolutely ready to hear criticisms of, and improvements to, the idea of the levy. In a moment, I will talk about some of the challenges that will be thrown up by the Government’s proposals to move large amounts of money out of apprenticeships through the reforms to the levy.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
On the shadow Minister’s previous point, I spoke to businesses in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages, and one pointed out to me that 90 pieces of paperwork were required, with multiple contract stages, just to get, for example, a plumber apprentice to take part in any scheme. The college in my constituency, which is outstanding and has a 72% completion rate compared with the national average of 58%, is doing strong work, but the businesses, in particular the small and medium-sized enterprises, are saying that the apprenticeship levy does not work for them and has excluded them from skills development. I am interested to hear what the shadow Minister has to say about that.
Neil O’Brien
As I said, I am absolutely ready to hear detailed thoughts and to have the detailed discussion about how one improves all these different things, and I am pleased that the hon. Lady’s local college seems to be highly successful in delivering these things. Every year, on average, twice as many people started apprenticeships under the last Government as started them under the previous Labour Government, so we did get a lot more of them, as well as higher quality. I do not know what the 90 bits of paper are, but I am absolutely ready to hear and to talk about ways we could improve those matters.
On the point about SMEs that the hon. Lady raised, that is exactly why last March we moved to 100% funding for SMEs—to make things easier for them. I agree with the hon. Lady: there is a lot to do to make it easier for SMEs to participate in the levy-led system. I am just not convinced that any of the concerns she raises will be addressed by shutting down IfATE or setting up Skills England. She might hope that they will be—I hope that they will be—but I do not see anything in this legislation that will fix any of the problems that she complains about. Obviously, we hope that collectively we will solve the problems in the system.
There are quite a lot of concerns—including concerns among those on the Labour Benches, which I will come on to—about the transfer of IfATE’s powers to the Secretary of State compromising the independence with which apprenticeships and wider technical qualifications, such as T-levels, are accredited, and diluting the voice of employers. As numerous people have pointed out, we would not and do not accept that on the academic side, where we have both independent exam boards and Ofqual creating and monitoring specifications and exams. This is yet another example of our treating the academic side—the route that most of us went down—differently from the technical side. As the Labour peer Lord Knight has pointed out:
“The problem that some of us have with the Bill is that it feels like the second half is missing. The second half is the establishment of Skills England as a statutory body…Being subsumed within a division of the Department for Education…is problematic. The Minister needs to reflect on it.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC87.]
As another Labour peer, Baroness Blower, pointed out,
“the appropriate move from where we are would be to a statutory body”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC90.]
Stephen Evans, chief executive of the Learning and Work Institute, said that giving Skills England legislative backing
“would…cement the body’s independence.”
In contrast, the Bill originally introduced by the Government did not even include the words “Skills England”. The very act of a further reorganisation, even if one thinks it is a good idea, is likely to further compound the effects of the Budget and the decision to move apprenticeships money to other things. I will just rehearse that for a moment. Obviously, the Budget saw a £40 billion overall tax increase and the largest part of that is a £25 billion increase in national insurance, which is squarely targeted on part-time and lower-income workers. It hits exactly the tier of the workforce that is typically the apprenticeship kind of tier. Of course, apprenticeships do not require payment of national insurance, but when we see lots of employers, as we do now, shedding jobs in that tier, that is inevitably bad for the number of apprenticeships.
That is compounded by what the Government want to do in terms of taking money out of apprenticeships. There has been some confusion about that, because safely before the election, Labour in opposition had the idea that it was going to let employers take 50% of the money from the levy and spend it on things that were not apprenticeships. Then, as the election drew nearer, that idea seemed to disappear and did not feature any more. Lots of people assumed that it was gone. Then I assumed it was definitely gone, because I asked the current Minister—whom we have here today—in Westminster Hall whether the 50% target still stood, and the Minister said that the policy was under review. Then a couple of weeks later, in oral questions, when we asked the Secretary of State whether the 50% target still stood, she said that it did, even though lots of people in industry think that that is not the plan.
This whole question about how much of the money will be taken out of apprenticeships and put elsewhere is shrouded in confusion. I would love it—I would be delighted—if the Minister could talk about that point today and tell us whether it is still 50%. It is a binary thing: it either is 50% or is not. I would love the Minister to tell us the answer one way or another. At the moment, the levy raises about £2 billion a year. If the Government take 50% of that money out, they might think that is a good thing. They might say, “Yes, we want employers to be able to spend a billion quid on other stuff.” But if they take all that money out of apprenticeships, one thing they will definitely have is fewer apprenticeships. They could say it is fine—
Melanie Onn
The shadow Minister references the number of apprentices, and he pointed to the previous Government’s record on that, but, in my constituency, apprenticeship starts fell year on year under the previous Government. Lots of young people have been completely disenfranchised, having had their apprenticeships end early without getting to completion. There has to be some kind of change so that we are not failing young people. There has to be a review of the levy, which employers have said is far too restrictive. The hon. Member’s points do not actually bear scrutiny when we get down to constituency-level data, do they?
Neil O’Brien
I give the hon. Lady the national-level data—I think I did already—because I do not have in my head the data for every constituency. At the national level, we had twice as many apprenticeship starts every year under the last Conservative Government as we did under the previous Labour Government. The hon. Lady might say, “That’s not enough; it should’ve been even higher,” and I would perhaps even agree with her. I would have liked the number to be even higher as well.
The hon. Lady said that numbers fell. What we saw was that, even though the overall number of starts was twice as high under the Conservatives as it had been under Labour, absolutely, the shift from frameworks to standards and to a higher quality of apprenticeships did reduce numbers. It did not take them down to where they had been under Labour, but it did reduce them. However, that shift was essential, and I do not think that anyone wants to go back from standards to frameworks.
There was a damning 2015 Ofsted report, which the hon. Lady will remember well, that found that quite a lot of people—a lot of learners—had been on an apprenticeship for more than a year and did not even know they were on an apprenticeship.
Neil O’Brien
Such was the low level of quality—such was the total absence of any training or meaningful content in the apprenticeship. What we had was an abuse. What we had was employers being able to pay below the national minimum wage—below the rates even for young people—and, at the same time, not providing meaningful training and what all of us want, which is proper, high-quality apprenticeships. I do not think the hon. Lady is really going to argue for a move back to those previous frameworks—
Neil O’Brien
But, as she rises to her feet, perhaps she will tell me if she does want to go backwards to frameworks.
Melanie Onn
That is not what I am rising to my feet to say. It is interesting that the shadow Minister points out the differential rates of pay between young people and older people, because we have just had the Employment Rights Bill going through Parliament, during which Conservative Members were absolutely incandescent that we might seek to raise the pay of young people, equalise it and recognise fair rates of pay regardless of age.
I am interested in that 2015 report. The hon. Gentleman said “a lot of people”; was that the actual wording in the report?
Neil O’Brien
I am not sure what the question is. Is the hon. Lady asking whether what I said about the 2015 report was correct?
Melanie Onn
I was asking the shadow Minister to clarify the numbers. He refers to the report and makes a sweeping generalisation about it, so what exactly were the numbers? What is the accuracy of the report?
Neil O’Brien
Just to reassure the lady, the numbers are correct. Although I do not encourage people to use mobile phones in Committee, Sir Christopher, the hon. Lady can google her way to the 2015 Ofsted report. She can read it for herself and be chilled, as I was, by its description of the pre-reform system and the low level of quality that was being provided in it.
The hon. Lady tempts us off the topic to talk about wider issues. On those different rates, I would say that most systems around the world, including ours, have different rates of minimum wage by age. That is about making the so-called “bite” of the minimum wage similar for different ages. Different groups of people at different ages have different productivity levels and different typical rates of pay. Therefore, if a Government do not want to create large rates of youth unemployment—and most systems around the OECD do not—they end up with different minimum wage rates for different ages. That system has been there since the start; it was there when Labour created these things, and it was still there when we turned it into the national living wage, so none of that is novel.
I will say one thing about the Employment Rights Bill, since it has been brought up. We do not have the skills Minister herself with us, because, of course, she is in the other place, but I do just note that the Government have created a situation in which a lot of universities are facing industrial action—because the national insurance increase has wiped out all of the increases in fees, and one broken promise on fees is now being used to pay for another broken promise on tax. The Employment Rights Bill makes it easier to take industrial action. I think that a lot of universities, as employers, are dreading the impact. Having addressed that point, I will get back on topic.
Neil O’Brien
Sure. A shadow form exists at the moment, but that does not change the longer-term point that if we do not give it its own legislative basis and make it independent of the Department, all the criticisms and concerns about the dilution of the employer voice and so on still stand. I am not having a go at those who are setting up Skills England.
Leigh Ingham
On the point about independence, the chair has been announced as Phil Smith, the former CEO of Cisco. Surely that in itself is a sign of significant independence.
Neil O’Brien
A fantastic person—all good. It is like having NEDs—non-executive directors—in a Department; it is good to have external people. As I noted, however, the CEO of the organisation is literally not a civil servant; it is a job-share civil servant. They are people who currently work in the Department doing post-16 skills, so I am not sure about idea that this is an independent body. Can the hon. Lady tell me where Skills England is based? Physically, where is it located? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. Is it in Sanctuary Buildings, by any chance? Sanctuary Buildings is none other than the headquarters of the DFE. Is this, in fact a desk in an open plan office that is part of the DFE?
The Government can bring in good people. It is good to bring in good people. The DFE has some good NEDs, by the way, but that is not the same as having an independent institution. That is why Lord Blunkett and other Labour peers are warning that the Government are making a mistake. Those are their words, not ours. Lord Blunkett has a lot more experience of those things than me.
All I would say to the Minister and to hon. Members on the Government Benches is, instead of overturning what peers have put into the Bill, this might be one of those times when it is more sensible to listen to people on their own side, people with some serious grey hairs and a lot of experience, people in their own party, who are advising them that they are making a mistake here. Instead of overturning what they have done, the Government should allow it to stand. The criticisms being made by people in the industry and people with experience in education and skills are serious. I hope that the Government will listen to them, rather than simply overturning what they have done and ignoring them.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
We are debating clauses 1 to 3 stand part and schedules 1 to 3. The Minister, in her opening remarks, talked a lot about the intention to create Skills England, how it will operate and so on. That is not in clauses 1 to 3.
The Bill is all about transferring functions from the independent Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education to the Secretary of State in central Government. Colleagues may have seen the, as ever, helpful and pithy descriptive notes from the House of Commons Library. Clause 1 introduces schedule 1, which will transfer statutory functions from the institute to the Secretary of State. Clause 2 introduces schedule 2, which will allow the Secretary of State to make schemes for the transfer of property rights and liabilities from the institute. Clause 3 will abolish the institute and introduce a schedule 3, which makes consequential amendments to the 2009 Act and other Acts.
The history of this sector is the history of many changes in the machinery of government and the creation of many quangos. There have been 12 in the past five decades. This one will be lucky—no doubt—13. My hon. Friend the shadow Minister helped us with some of the history and some of those previous bodies. I have a slightly longer list.
We have had industrial training boards, the Manpower Services Commission, the Training Commission, and the training and enterprise councils known as TECs—but those TECs were not the same as another type of TEC, the Technical Education Council, which existed alongside the Business Education Council or BEC in the 1970s. The two would merge in the 1980s to give us, of course, BTEC, the Business and Technology Education Council. There were national training organisations, the Learning and Skills Council, sector skills councils, the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, the Skills Funding Agency or SFA, which would later become the ESFA, or Education and Skills Funding Agency, and most recently LSIPs—local skills improvement partnerships—and IfATE.
Neil O’Brien
I, too, pay tribute to the work of Lord Sainsbury. Those points, which were inserted into what were then called the Sainsbury routes, drew on the experience of the best technical systems in the world, particularly those in Germany and Switzerland. What characterises those systems is the unbelievable level of employer ownership and the incredible constancy of the organisations, which are external to Government, that run them. The Bundesinstitut für Berufsbildung has been around for, I think, 50 or 60 years. Are those not the characteristics of a good system—employer ownership and independence—and the things that Lord Sainsbury was talking about?
Damian Hinds
My hon. Friend is right. If we take the full etymology, we can go back a lot further, to the creation of guilds centuries ago, which evolved into the modern system.
Damian Hinds
No, I do not, but there is a definition of what an apprenticeship is. There are perfectly good reasons to have all manner of training courses, including entry-level ones, that do important things, but they are not apprenticeships. The shadow Minister talked about Germany. In our country, the minimum length of an apprenticeship is shorter than the typical length of one in Germany. The time off the job—the time in college—is shorter. As I say, we can add on other things, but we cannot stretch the definition of what an apprenticeship is indefinitely. I may come back to that later.
On the face of it, this is a simple Bill—it has 13 pages and is on a simple subject—so it should be fairly easy for a Committee to dispatch in a couple of Thursdays. I have no doubt that Government Members will take the opportunity to make speeches on this subject, and I am sure those will be rather good. Members may make what could be described as great speeches and what they say will be largely unarguable. I fancy that we may hear the word “mission” from them, perhaps even more than once. They will talk about the importance of skills in our economy, investing in the next generation, valuing every single person for what they can do and the value of joining-up across Government Departments.
That will all be correct, but it will be largely beside the point. To turn a great speech that includes those things into a truly outstanding speech in this Committee, they would have to explain why taking away the independence of the body overseeing the system that upholds the standards would make those entirely laudable and shared goals more likely to come about. I know of no reason to believe that it will, but I am keen to hear from anybody who has such an idea.
In the Labour manifesto, there were some very laudable aims. It said that it wanted to empower
“local communities to develop the skills people need”
and to
“put employers at the heart of our skills system.”
Labour said that it would
“establish Skills England to bring together business, training providers and unions with national and local government”,
in order to deliver its industrial strategy. The manifesto said:
“Skills England will formally work with the Migration Advisory Committee to make sure training in England accounts for the overall needs of the labour market”.
It mentioned a commitment to
“devolving adult skills funding to Combined Authorities…alongside a greater role in supporting people into work”,
and Labour will
“transform Further Education colleges into specialist Technical Excellence Colleges.”
There are different ways that those aims could be achieved, and I would argue that there are better ways. The Government could, for example, keep IfATE as the standard-setting and upholding body, and create a new, small body, possibly inside the Treasury, to assess the needs of the economy and allocate funds accordingly. They could also strengthen the powers of local skills improvement partnerships, working closely with devolved authorities and mayors, to ensure that what is delivered at a local level in individual colleges matches what the local economy needs. I would have probably chosen that architecture, but plenty of other variations are possible.
To be clear, the Bill does not do any of those things. It simply abolishes the independent body that convenes employers to set the standards and then uphold them, and it hands those powers to the Secretary of State. It does nothing else—I say that, but it is not totally clear to me what it does to Ofqual, and we may debate that when we get to clause 8. I suggest that the Bill presents two fundamental questions: first, about independence; and secondly, about who should set the expectations and standards in any given sector of work—should it be the employers in that sector or somebody else? We will come to that debate when we reach clauses 4 and 5.
Ultimately, this is about whether we believe enough in the phrase “parity of esteem” to do the things necessary to achieve it. As I said in the House the other day, parity of esteem is not something one can just “assert”, and it cannot be legislated for. We cannot pass a law to give something greater esteem. Esteem is in the eye of the esteemer and it can only be earned. In part, that comes from knowing that the qualifications of the technical and vocational strand in our country are just as rigorous and have the same integrity as the academic strand.
By the way, independence is not totally a left/right issue. There are plenty of people on the right of politics who share the Minister’s desire not to have independent bodies. There is a general “anti the quangos” strand, and I have some sympathy for that. By the way, a debate is going on at the moment about removing the independence of the national health service and bringing it into the Department of Health and Social Care. That can be argued both ways. On the one hand, it will be harder for the NHS to do some things, particularly what they call reconfigurations, when they become subject to political pressure. On the other hand, it can be argued that there should of course be direct control from a democratically elected Government over the most important institution in our country. However, I think an independent body for upholding standards in education is in a separate bracket.
Neil O’Brien
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the context in which this is happening matters? We are talking about getting rid of a prestigious and independent institution, and at the same time, T-levels will not do what Lord Sainsbury hoped they will do. They were supposed to replace the existing standards but, in fact, they will be just another thing in the alphabet soup. We are seeing apprenticeships being made shorter again, and we are going back towards shelf-stacking types of apprenticeships. The mood music is already pretty ominous, and that is against the backdrop of Ministers getting more power by taking this back into the Department and abolishing independence. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is an issue?
Damian Hinds
I do. Funnily enough, my hon. Friend anticipates my next paragraph. Any Government rightly want more young people to pass their GCSEs, get good A-levels, or start and complete apprenticeships. The truth is that the quickest way to have more people getting any qualification is to make it a bit easier, and there is plenty of history of that, I am afraid. The entry requirements or length could be reduced, the pass mark could be made lower, or the credits that count towards the outcome could be changed. One of the reasons we have independent bodies setting standards is so that that temptation cannot be succumbed to, and crucially, everybody can see that it cannot, so they can have total faith in the standards being upheld.
Essentially, the rationale for why there is an independent Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education is the same one as why the Chancellor sets fiscal rules, or why Gordon Brown made the Bank of England independent: it is specifically for the Government to keep themselves within certain tram lines. We do this for academic qualifications. I have asked the Minister this question I think three times, and I will ask it again today: it would not be acceptable, would it, to say, “I’m going to put the pass mark, standards and specification for A-levels in the hands of a Government Minister”? If that is not acceptable for A-levels, how can it possibly be acceptable for T-levels? And we still say that we believe in parity of esteem.
In the good, possibly great, speeches that we will hear from Government Members, one other thing they might say—in fact, they have already started to say it; they pre-empted me—is that apprenticeship starts have fallen since the peak, but that under this Government, they will rise. Well, of course they will rise. If we look at the time series over the last decade of apprenticeship starts, we are not comparing apples with apples; we are comparing apples with oranges, because we had major changes in what counts as an apprenticeship, with the move from frameworks to standards as well as the minimum duration and minimum time off the job.
In discussing the overall numbers, we should also mention that the falls were in the intermediate level and that there were rises in the advanced level, and especially in higher-level apprenticeships. If the specification is reduced, of course that will increase the numbers. To be fair, the Government are not waiting for Skills England. They have already been doing this, by bringing the minimum length down from 12 months to eight months. They have also announced what they are calling foundation apprenticeships, and I hope the Minister will be able to tell us exactly what those are—they sound a bit like traineeships, but let us hear it—and crucially, whether they will count towards the number of apprenticeships that are being undertaken in the country.
Janet Daby
Hon. Members have given me much to think about and feed back. I remind Opposition Members that one in eight young people are not in education, employment or training, a third of vacancies in our country are due to a lack of skills, and many people are in jobs for which they are underqualified. Young people need to know that when they undertake skills training, there will be a guaranteed job at the end of the process. We are committed to ensuring growth in this country. We want to get young people into work to ensure that they succeed and progress in life. We absolutely know that what we are trying to achieve with Skills England is the right thing to do.
I will attempt to respond to the various points that hon. Members have made. There have been previous arm’s length bodies with functions partially linked to those intended for Skills England, but none provides a direct comparison, given Skills England’s distinct remit.
Establishing Skills England is a manifesto commitment, and will support the delivery of the Government’s missions. As an Executive agency, Skills England will be subject to clear requirements on governance, transparency and accountability, and Ministers will be accountable to Parliament. The Government have put in the Bill a duty for the Secretary of State to publish information about matters they will take into account in deciding whether to prepare a standard or apprenticeship assessment plan without a group of persons. This new power will therefore be subject to the same level of transparency as existing powers being transferred from IfATE.
An Executive agency is a widely used model of arm’s length body. It has a clearly defined status and must be established and governed in line with official Cabinet Office guidance. Executive agencies are appropriate for the delivery of specialised functions separate from a primarily policy-focused Department, but within a policy and resources framework set by the Department, and for delivery of services to other parts of central Government using specialist skills. The Executive agency model will give Skills England the independence to focus on the delivery of its functions at arm’s length from the Department for Education, while ensuring sufficient proximity to the Department that Skills England can quickly and efficiently inform decisions on skills policy and delivery.
Skills England is operating in shadow form and is working extremely closely with IfATE, which also currently has a base in Sanctuary Buildings—the Department for Education. Following a vigorous recruitment process, in line with civil service guidance, we have appointed Skills England’s chief executive officers. Tessa Griffiths and Sarah Maclean have been appointed co-CEOs. They are senior leaders with long-standing experience in the public sector. Tessa and Sarah have been leading Skills England while it has been in shadow form, since last summer. They have driven the rapid progress that has seen Skills England start to deliver its important work ahead of the passing of this Bill. We do not believe in delay; we want to get on with establishing Skills England as an arm’s length body.
Skills England’s being run by CEOs at civil service director level is consistent with the approach taken by IfATE and other Executive agencies of the Department for Education. It is really important that I make those points so that there is a clear understanding of what is happening.
We considered, but ultimately decided against, expanding or otherwise retaining IfATE. We want to set Skills England up to build on IfATE’s work with employers, and to shape technical education and apprenticeships, but it will be very different from IfATE. It will have a much broader remit and will be more ambitious. It will bring IfATE’s functions together with others that are not currently in statute. We need to go further and do more to identify skills needs and work with regional partners to ensure they are being met. By bringing together those different functions into a single organisation, we will really be able to accelerate change. That will help the skills system to be more responsive to emerging skills needs. We need a flexible system that acts fast on the best available evidence to address the skills gaps that threaten to hold back our country. I am sure none of us wants to do that.
IfATE has worked with employers to design over 700 occupational standards. Skills England will build on that important work and retain a strong role for employers. But the skills system in England has matured since IfATE was created in 2017, and the scale and urgency of the skills challenge that we face means we need a new approach.
The Government are committed to delivering skills for the sector, as I have already pointed out, and we are listening to the needs of employers. This can be seen in our reform, growth and skills offer. Skills England will build on the work of IfATE and employers will continue to play a critical role in the design and delivery of apprenticeships and technical education. Indeed, that is already happening. The changes being brought about through the Bill have been designed in response to employer feedback and will simply mean that employers are not overburdened by repetitive and drawn-out processes, which we know can lead to disengagement.
I welcome the written submissions from the Institute of the Motor Industry, the Association of Colleges, JTL Training and the Royal Society of Chemistry. I thank those organisations for contributing to this important debate. I completely agree with the Institute of the Motor Industry’s view that Skills England must maintain an “employer-led ethos” with “strong industry collaboration”. That is why Skills England is already working, and will continue to work, closely with industry, while also building a clear picture of the challenges facing employers, including regional skills gaps, in order to support growth in our skills sector.
It is pleasing to hear the Association of Colleges, which represents more than 98% of further education colleges, express strong support for plans to establish Skills England and recognise the critical role that Skills England will play in the Government’s broader post-16 education and skills agenda.
Although many Members of the other place support the aims of Skills England, it is disappointing that peers voted for an amendment that would delay its full establishment. The Government are clear that employers need a fully formed Skills England now; they cannot wait. That is why we have tabled amendment 1 to overturn that amendment made in the other place.
Gaps in our economy are holding back growth and opportunity. We need the Bill to give Skills England the key tools that it needs to tackle them now, and not in 12 months’ time. Skills England has been operating in shadow form since July. Due to extensive transition planning over several months, it is ready to move fast to deliver the functions made possible by the Bill. Delay simply is not an option.
With regard to whether employers can spend up to 50% of levy funds on non-apprenticeship training, I do not want to put a target or limit on flexibility. It will be led by what employers need and driven by Skills England analysis. We have already introduced flexibility through new foundation and shorter apprenticeships, and we will continue to work with employers to understand where future flexibility will be most helpful.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister says she does not want to set a limit, but there was a commitment from the Secretary of State that employers would be able to spend up to 50% of their funds on non-apprenticeships. That was a Labour commitment. If I understand her, it will no longer be up to 50%; it will be some other number. Or is she saying that it will be up to 100%? Which of those things is she saying?
Janet Daby
What I am saying is that we have already introduced flexibility and we will continue to work with employers to understand where future flexibility will be most helpful. That will be worked through with Skills England. I am happy to get the hon. Member some further information.
The Chair
Order. The Minister is not giving way. As the shadow Minister knows, in Committee people may speak more than once in a debate, so if he wishes to come back after the Minister has sat down, he is free to do so.
Neil O’Brien
We have mysteries wrapped in mysteries here. As well as the lack of clarity about the future caused by the Bill, even in this debate on one group of clauses, we have had an extraordinary statement by the Minister. Businesses would like to know how, in just a few months’ time—next year—they will be able to spend a couple of billion pounds of their own money. This is employers’ money. Labour have oscillated between, “We will let 50% of this go on other things”, “No, we will not” and, since being in government, “We are reviewing this. This is not our policy any more.” On the Floor of the House, the Secretary of State has been saying, “No, it is absolutely our policy—50%. That is the number.” That is what she has told the House. Now we have another position—a fifth—on the spending of this money: “No, that is not the number any more.”
Employers will be jaw-to-the-floor agog at what is going on in the DFE. What is the policy? This is billions of pounds of employers’ money, in a difficult economic situation, being spent imminently, and yet the DFE cannot say—the Minister literally would not take a further question on it—what the policy is. What an extraordinary situation. What a shameful situation. Unbelievable.
We have been saying that, down the line, there might be some things to worry about in this transfer of power away from an employer-led and independent system towards the tender mercies of the DFE, but employers have got something to worry about right now. The Government do not seem to know what their own policies are. On that basis, I really do want to press clause 1 to a vote, and we will vote against it.
Janet Daby
We have been listening to businesses and employers, and they are absolutely telling us that they want greater flexibility in our apprenticeship systems and in how employers can spend their levy funds. We are reforming apprenticeships to deliver greater flexibility for learners and employers, including through shorter and foundation apprenticeships. I have attempted to answer the shadow Minister’s questions, but he is not satisfied. I have also offered to ensure that we get some more information. I want to make one more point: we are not putting a target or limit on flexibility; this will be led by what employers need.
Neil O’Brien
I am not asking for a target; that is a complete mischaracterisation. I am asking for clarity on the Government’s own policy. The Government said that that they would allow employers to take up to 50% of the money and spend it on things that were not apprenticeships. Either that is still the policy or it is no longer the policy. Which of those two things is the truth?
Janet Daby
I will get back to the hon. Gentleman. I will make sure there is a written response.
Draft Industrial Training Levy (Construction Industry Training Board) Order 2025
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Allin-Khan. This statutory instrument effectively kicks the can down the road for a year while the Government come to a decision on the CITB’s future. That is obviously not ideal from the sector’s point of view, but I can see that it gives the Government time to think.
The Opposition thank Mark Farmer for his thorough and very frank review, and for his analysis of the big challenges facing the sector in building a proper skills pipeline. His recommendations for a “fundamental reset” were very clear, including merging the two remaining ITBs into a single workforce planning and development body for both construction and engineering, supported by a statutory levy. The Department for Education has already said in response that it will not merge the two ITBs.
I have some questions I would like answered today. I appreciate that it can be difficult for Ministers to answer everything in these short debates, but I would be very grateful if the Minister undertook to write on some of these issues if there is no time to answer today.
In its briefing for this debate, the CITB explained that £143 million, or more than 12% of all the funds raised from the levy over the lifetime of this Parliament, will be spent on
“running the business, including grant and levy administration”.
That equates to about £28 million a year. Does the Minister think that kind of share—£1 in every £8—is appropriate? If not, what share would be appropriate?
My second question is about the Government’s emerging thinking on the CITB. The Farmer review noted that the CITB had delivered useful training, but
“it is not delivering the level of strategic forward thinking, scale and pace of influence or tangible bottom line impact that the industry now requires”.
Specifically, the review said that the CITB had too little focus on upskilling the existing workforce, did not police well enough how levy funds were used, and needed a clear, modular, unitised system of qualifications. Can the Minister say anything about her emerging thinking on the future of the CITB?
A third question is about the growth and skills levy. The Government have said that they will allow employers to take funds out of the current apprenticeship levy to spend on things that are not apprenticeships. The Secretary of State for Education has recently talked about allowing 50% of funds to be spent in that way.
Other things equal, of course, we will end up with fewer apprenticeships if we take a lot of money out of apprenticeships. What is the Government’s assessment of the impact of allowing employers to take 50% out of their levy funds to spend on non-apprenticeships in, for example, construction? What will that do to the number of apprenticeship starts and participation? There is an overlap between the apprenticeship levy and the CITB levy for firms in this industry. If, for example, it turns out that employers are allowed to take out 50%, what would that do to the number of apprenticeships in construction? I ask not least because the CITB has identified apprenticeships as a key route into the sector.
Fourthly, what assessment has the Minister made of the extraordinary joint appeal by the Royal Town Planning Institute, the Royal Institute of British Architects, the Chartered Institute of Building and the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for level 7 apprenticeships in the built environment to be exempt from the Government’s plans to cut level 7 apprenticeships? Those organisations say that they are “deeply concerned” by the Government’s plans and that cutting level 7 apprenticeships in this sector will be bad for upskilling existing workers and will be particularly bad for access to the profession for less well-off people.
Will the Minister heed those warnings from a sector that is very worried about the Government’s plans by protecting level 7 construction apprenticeships from the planned cull so that less well-off people can get top-level jobs in these very important professions? I hope the Minister can answer some of these questions today, but if not, I hope she will write to us.
Janet Daby
I will endeavour to answer those four questions. As the shadow Minister has suggested, if there are any questions I am unable to answer, he is welcome to write to me, or I can write to him.
This mission-led Government are kick-starting economic growth, delivering on net zero commitments and breaking down barriers to opportunity. The Government have committed to building 1.5 million homes in England during this Parliament for the growth mission, delivering the biggest boost to social and affordable housing in a generation.
In 2023, as the shadow Minister is aware, Mark Farmer was commissioned to carry out an independent review of the two remaining industry training boards, the engineering construction ITB and the construction ITB. That was part of the standard cycle of Cabinet Office reviews of public bodies. As I have said, the review’s publication was delayed until 30 January 2025 due to a lengthy fact-checking process and the need to consider our response in the light of our missions following the general election. A headline finding was that the construction and engineering construction sectors face common strategic workforce challenges. The review recommended merging the ITBs to focus on improving workforce resilience across both sectors.
As we press ahead with delivering 1.5 million homes, now would be the wrong time to distract the construction sector by consulting on changes to legislation. What the sector needs now is continued investment in skills and training to create a larger and more effective workforce. We are driving that through increased voluntary collaboration between ITBs, initially focused on the commonality of purpose in infrastructure, as demonstrated by the recent signing of the skills charter by both ITBs and Sizewell C. There is no immediate plan to legislate to merge the ITBs.
The CITB levy is specific to the construction industry. It has a wider remit on the types of training that can be funded, such as providing grants to deliver training to existing staff to meet any construction-related training needs, as well as setting sector occupational standards to assure the quality of qualifications.
The CITB has also used its levy funding to address barriers specific to the construction industry, including the creation of a new entrant support team. This mainly supports smaller businesses to identify appropriate training, and it provides mentoring and other support for learners. In less than a year, NEST has supported 2,506 distinct employers and 5,230 apprentices. Of those apprentices, 96.6% remain on their training or have achieved their apprenticeship, which is an excellent result. The ITBs are working with the Department for Education as the growth and skills offer is further defined, to ensure that ITB levy-funded training complements that provision. As I have already said, there are no immediate plans to legislate to merge the ITBs.
The CITB’s running costs are currently at 15% and include the cost of administering the levy, grants and funding schemes for employers. Its underlying corporate costs—including human resources, finance and other back office services—are at 10%. The 2023 ITB review recommended that there should be more transparency on the ITBs’ funding costs, that their corporate service costs should be benchmarked against suitable comparators, and that both ITBs should look to make 5% efficiency savings. In 2023-24, the CITB made efficiency savings of 11.3%. The Government agree with those recommendations, and a steering group will be convened to monitor their implementation.
The Department for Education’s response to the ITB review is on the Government website. We have accepted the majority of the review’s recommendations. Where the Department has partially accepted the recommendations, or accepted them in principle, it is because the recommendations are complex and are likely to require additional scoping of form and function. In some cases, consultation with the industry is likely to be required.
We must see a step change in construction skills delivery to achieve many of the Government’s infrastructure and housing ambitions. Over the next 12 months, we will work with ITBs and other Government Departments through a cross-departmental steering group to scope the different ways of implementing the more complex recommendations. All that work will need to be carried out before final policy decisions can be made on whether to fully accept and implement the recommendations. I am happy to write to the shadow Minister on his other financial points.
This draft order is designed to enable the CITB to concentrate on its job at hand, which is turning the dial on the provision of a growing and skilled construction workforce, alongside everything else this Government and industry will also bring to the table. The CITB levy ensures that the construction industry invests in training and skills. It provides businesses of all sizes with access to ringfenced funding estimated at almost £224 million over the next financial year. Hon. Members will know that we cannot afford to turn down such investment, given our ambition for growth and our ambition to build 1.5 million homes during this Parliament.
Neil O’Brien
I think the hon. Lady has already covered this, but is she happy to write to me about the level 7 apprenticeships?
Janet Daby
I thank the hon. Member for raising that again—I had it in my notes. Further information on the level 7 apprenticeships will shortly be made available to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Oral Answers to Questions
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
One reason why England’s schools rose up the international league tables in recent years is that they spent more time on core academic subjects such as English and maths. Having fallen sharply under the last Labour Government, the share of pupils doing double or triple science at GCSE has also gone up from 70% to 98%. Can the Minister reassure the House that time will not be taken away from the core academic subjects, and that their content will not be cut back, as a result of the curriculum review?
Catherine McKinnell
The Government entered office to unprecedented challenges, including crumbling public services and crippling public finances. In the face of a significant financial black hole we are taking tough decisions to fix the foundations, but we are protecting key education priorities, rebuilding schools and rolling out breakfast clubs, and we will continue to do so.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I completely agree with the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Tulip Siddiq). What is displacing reading for pleasure among children is smartphones and social media, including in schools. The Department for Education’s own behaviour survey found that nearly half of pupils in years 10 and 11 report that in most or all lessons, mobile phones are being used when they should not be. The guidance is not working, so why are the Government continuing to block our proposals for a proper ban on smartphones in schools?
Catherine McKinnell
Last year, under the previous Government, we saw the steepest year-on-year drop in the number of children and young people enjoying reading. The hon. Member should look at the record of his Government before pointing the finger. Phones should not be out in schools; it is a simple as that. Heads have the power to impose rules that suit their school community. Just a year ago, his Government claimed that they were “prohibiting” mobile phones in schools, and that their guidance meant a “consistent approach” across schools. Those were their words. The then Secretary of State said:
“We are giving our hard-working teachers the tools to take action”.
Was that Secretary of State right back then, when they backed the Tory Government’s measures, or is the hon. Member?
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Labour’s plan says that the early years must be the top priority, but a survey by the National Day Nurseries Association finds that nursery fees are going up by 10% on average because the Government are not compensating nurseries for the cost of the national insurance increase. Will the Government rethink that decision, which the Early Years Alliance has described as “catastrophic”, or will it be just another example of a tax on working people?
Bridget Phillipson
We are investing more in the early years system through the Budget; there are record levels of investment to support families with the expansion that they were promised by the Conservatives, but for which there had been no funding for delivery. We have also delivered the single-biggest uplift in the early years pupil premium, alongside an expansion grant, because we know that, in too many parts of the country, parents are unable to access the places that they have been promised. We are determined to turn that around. Our ambitions to roll out primary-based nurseries will also make a big difference by supporting parents in the childcare deserts left by the Conservatives.
Education
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(1 year ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
Where the adjudicator upholds an objection to the published admission number, I cannot foresee a circumstance where that might be the case—
Catherine McKinnell
It will very much depend on the local context. Obviously, it will be for the adjudicator as an independent professional to take that decision for maintained schools. To be clear, for academies it will be for the Secretary of State to end a funding agreement, and for maintained schools it will be for the local authority to determine.
[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025; c. 430.]
Written correction submitted by the Minister for School Standards, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell):
Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(1 year ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss.
Through these regulations, the Government are increasing tuition fees to £9,535 a year. The maximum maintenance loan for students not living at home is £10,227, or £13,348 in London, so after a typical three-year degree, a graduate will need to pay back up to £59,000, or up to £68,600 for those who studied in London. If the Government continue to raise fees in the same way throughout this Parliament, those figures will increase to about £66,400 in the rest of the country, or £76,900 for those who studied in London. Those are two very large numbers.
As it happens, this year’s fees hike has not made universities any better off because the cost of the national insurance hike wipes out the benefit to the sector of the decision to increase tuition fees. Effectively, one broken promise on fees is paying for another broken promise on tax. The Secretary of State’s website still has the ironic headline, “Graduates, you will pay less under a Labour Government”, but in reality they are paying higher fees and more tax, too.
The current system produces some incredibly high marginal rates for young people. Those who have a postgraduate loan, or who pay the high-income child benefit charge, face incredibly high marginal rates, even on middling incomes. Sadly, the new Government have abandoned plans to reform the HICBC, so this problem will not go away any time soon. Graduates have 51% of their income taxed away at just £50,000 of earnings, a sum which will not feel like being rich for those renting in an expensive city. At £60,000 of earnings, graduates with kids, particularly postgraduates, face marginal rates in the 58% to 73% range—the kind of rates that used to apply only to super-taxes on the very wealthy.
One way things have changed since the launch of fees is that we have much better data, particularly thanks to the creation of the longitudinal education outcomes dataset under the last Government. This lets us look at a degree’s value added compared with something else, and something else can sometimes be better. The latest data shows that the median first-degree graduate earnings five years after graduation are £29,900, compared with £33,800 for level 4 apprentices; the apprentices are earning substantially more.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies has taken the deepest look at this question. It has considered how graduate earnings are evolving for those who study at different types of institutions and on different types of courses, and it has tried to compare that with counterfactuals for people with similar prior characteristics. It looked at how many people saw their earnings boosted by a degree and what the costs were, and worked out the net benefit for the individual and the taxpayer, and it combined these perspectives to get a final score. The conclusion of its 2020 report was that
“seen over the whole lifetime, we estimate that total returns will be negative for around 30% of both men and women.”
That is a huge share for whom it is proving not to be worth it.
The IFS also noted that
“While getting an undergraduate degree is worthwhile financially for most students, there is significant variation across subjects. Some subjects, such as medicine, law and economics, offer a springboard to very lucrative careers…However, a significant minority of mostly men are likely to not see positive returns as a result of going to university…lifetime earnings returns remain low or negative for subjects such as creative arts and English.”
Today’s Times has a report based on my freedom of information requests to the Student Loans Company. That in itself is telling: the whole process of assessing public spending on higher education needs to be radically more transparent. We should not need to rely on freedom of information requests just to get this data, but now that we have it, it reveals the vast variations between higher education institutions in the share of loans that are being repaid. Where we see that only very small fractions of the money loaned out by the taxpayer is paid back, it often means that the courses are not that great for either the taxpayer or the student, who may feel that their degree has cost them a lot without necessarily taking them to where they hoped. Yet the Government seem to have looked first at jacking up young people’s fees, and they seem to have given up on reforming the system to weed out courses that offer low value for money.
Speaking of value for money, one university that will benefit from these regulations is the University of Greater Manchester. The Minister will have seen the extremely concerning reports in the press, particularly The Manchester Mill, about the attempts to pay huge sums of what is effectively taxpayers’ money to relatives of the university’s managers, and to what appears to be a shell company in Casablanca. Can the Minister assure me that he is investigating those concerning allegations?
I am very sympathetic to the plight of staff at universities where the leadership have got them into financial difficulties, be it through taking out ill-judged, expensive loans, overspending on buildings or becoming overdependent on one particular group of overseas students—I am sympathetic to universities and lecturers more generally, as it is a hugely important job. I am not saying that all universities are awash with cash, but it is worth saying that up-front real-terms funding per student is still substantially above the level of the pre-fees era, even as student numbers have exploded.
There are many wonderful, valuable courses in our universities, which I hope will expand and prosper, but young people in Britain are now facing really large repayments and high marginal rates, which make it difficult to get on in life. We need to do right by our universities, but we also need to do right by our young people. I believe that reforms offer scope to get them a much better deal. We should look first to reforms, rather than simply increasing the burdens on young people. That is why we are sceptical about these regulations.
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. Before we adjourned, I was about to turn to new clause 24. I appreciate the concern of hon. Members in this matter and their desire for academies to follow rules on granting a leave of absence. One of the many ways in which schools encourage regular attendance is by making clear to parents the circumstances under which leave of absence can and cannot be granted. All schools, however, including academies, are already required to have regard to statutory attendance guidance and are expected to follow the rules on granting a leave of absence.
Headteachers understand the responsibilities and know how important it is that children are in school. We have very little, if any, evidence of misuse of power in academies or big increases in the number of leaves of absence. All the indications are that academy heads follow the guidance and apply the exceptional circumstances test to relevant requests for leave, only granting them where it is met. We will continue to monitor this and support them to make school the best place to be for every child, but new clause 24 would not help us to do that. I invite the hon. Member to withdraw new clause 21.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 25
Report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.
(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include the following information—
(a) how many private schools have closed as a result of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees;
(b) how many pupils have moved school because of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees;
(c) an analysis, considering paragraphs (a) and (b), of the impact of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees on maintained and academy schools, including on—
(i) the availability of school places nationally and in areas where private schools have closed;
(ii) the percentage of children which are placed at their first-choice school; and
(iii) the number of schools which have had to increase their Publish Admissions Number.”—(Neil O'Brien.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O'Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Around my constituency, we have seen the closure of a couple of local independent schools, which have blamed the decision to introduce VAT. This will mean more people looking for places in local state schools that are already oversubscribed and, in turn, fewer people getting their first choice. New clause 25 is not about the principle of the tax, but about having a proper mechanism to monitor the impact on the state system, among other things.
An importance piece published in The Times over the weekend found, based on freedom of information requests, that at least 27 local authorities have no spare school places in certain year groups, which will make it difficult to find places for children forced to move schools. Those are exactly the kinds of issues that we need to monitor very carefully, which is why this new clause calls for a report on the impact of the policy.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 25, which seeks to monitor the impact of VAT on private school fees. There is, however, something missing in the new clause, which I have urged Ministers repeatedly to look at. I hope that even if they will not publicly talk about it, they are looking privately at the impact of this policy on the 100,000 children with special educational needs in private schools who do not have education, health and care plans, and may be displaced into the state sector. That will have an impact on the state sector and the demand for EHCPs, which is already in crisis. When Ministers respond, I hope they might address that point.
Stephen Morgan
I know the right hon. Member will have been listening very carefully to what I said, and I made it very clear that there is a census published each year, which sets out those figures. We will work very closely with local authorities to understand the impact that the policy has.
The hon. Member for Twickenham made a number of points on children with SEND. The vast majority of pupils who have special educational needs are educated in mainstream schools—whether they are state-maintained or private—where their needs are met. Where parents have chosen to send their child to a private school but their special educational needs could be met in the state sector—such as in England where children do not have an EHCP—VAT will apply to fees. The Government do not support the new clause for the reasons that I have outlined, and I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw it.
Neil O'Brien
I think it is clear from the Minister’s response that there are certain things we will not be able to find out in the absence of this new clause. We will not be able to see the numbers moving from the private sector to the state sector. In particular, as the hon. Member for Twickenham raised, we will not be able to see the critical flow of those with undiagnosed or unofficially recognised special needs, as they potentially move into the EHCP process and into state schools. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the impact of this policy over time, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 30
Publication of details of preventative care and family support
(1) Every local authority, must within six months of the passing of this Act, publish details of all preventative care and family support available to people in their area.
(2) Information published under subsection (1) must be made available—
(a) on the authority’s website, and
(b) in all public libraries in the authority’s area.”—(Munira Wilson.)
This new clause would require all local authorities to publish information about preventative care and family support and to ensure it is freely available to people living in the area.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
When I was on the Science and Technology Committee in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Even then the evidence was alarming; now it is absolutely terrifying. Children are now given smartphones at a very early age. A quarter of the UK’s three and four-year-olds own a smartphone, and by the end of primary school, four out of five kids have one. Over the past decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world. Over the exact same period, smartphones and social media became dominant in children’s lives. The growth in anxiety and mental health problems that we are seeing is focused almost entirely in young people, not older people.
There are many channels through which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. First, they displace time in the real world with friends. US data shows that prior to 2012, children spent more than two hours a day with friends. By 2019, that had halved. The proportion of kids feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world.
The invention of infinite-scroll social media has always reminded me of the famous social science experiment with the bottomless soup bowl. In this experiment, people were invited to eat from a soup bowl that was, unbeknownst to them, invisibly refilled from below. The constant refilling made people eat nearly twice as much as they would with a normal bowl—in some cases absurd amounts of soup.
This is not just about a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Kids are tired in school. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively, and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip-feed the user dopamine. The same problems are happening not just in the English-speaking world, but in the Nordic nations and all across western Europe. Alternative explanations do not fit the data.
Well-funded efforts by the tech industry to lobby, muddy the water, run interference and sow confusion are unconvincing. These problems are not just a coincidence. There is more and more evidence for a causal link to the disaster hitting our kids. Sapien Labs asked questions about adults’ mental health and combined them into a mental health quotient. They asked the same people when they got a smartphone. Some 28,000 people answered and the results were stark: the earlier a person gets a phone, the worse their adult mental health. That was particularly the case for girls.
On new clause 33, we heard from the hon. Member for Twickenham about the mental health challenge. Data from the OECD’s PISA found that, on average, two thirds of 15-year-olds across OECD countries reporting being distracted using digital devices, including phones, in most or every maths class. In addition, around 60% of pupils got distracted by other pupils using digital devices. That PISA data showed a “tangible” association between the use of digital devices in schools and bad learning outcomes. Students who reported being distracted by peers using devices in some or most maths classes scored significantly lower in maths tests, equivalent to three quarters of a year’s-worth of education. The effects are large.
Other studies have found that the use of smartphones in classrooms leads to students engaging in non-school-related activities—unsurprisingly—which adversely affects recall and comprehension. One study found that it can take students up to 20 minutes to refocus on what they were supposed to be learning after engaging in a non-academic activity.
Many parents know the problems with smartphones, but we face a collective action problem. We worry that our kids will miss out if they are the only ones without them, and we need to solve this problem. Across the country, there has been an explosion of parent-powered campaign groups aiming to fight back, including Smartphone Free Childhood, Safe Screens, and Delay Smartphones, to name but a few. They are doing inspiring work. Mumsnet has started a “Rage Against the Screen” campaign.
The Children’s Commissioner said:
“I honestly think that we will look back in 20 years’ time and be absolutely horrified by what we allowed our children to be exposed to.”
She is right. The shift to a screen-based childhood is having bad effects on young people, from mental health to school readiness to children simply turning up exhausted because they have been on their phone all night. These effects are set to widen gaps in achievement unless something decisive is done.
There are many things that the Government should do, but the first is to implement a proper ban on phones in school. The last Government issued guidance, but that is not enough. Although 90% of schools would say that they have some sort of ban, a survey by Policy Exchange last year found that only one in 10 schools had a full start-to-finish ban, which is the policy that we know works best. Lots of schools are still trying policies where kids have phones on them but are not supposed to have them out. The effect is that kids are distracted, teachers have to tell them to put them away, and all the issues to do with bullying and social media are in play during break times and more.
Ellie Chowns
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for banning smartphones in schools, but does he agree that banning smartphones in schools will not, in and of itself, tackle the problems that he has articulated? A recently published study, the first proper nationwide study of its type, shows that banning smartphones in school does not generate any statistical differences in various outcomes, because there is no difference in the amount of time that children are spending on their devices. Although there are strong arguments for banning them in school—and I recognise that there is a strong call for that from parents, teachers and, indeed, many students—a much more holistic approach is needed to tackle the harms that he has outlined.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Lady makes a thoughtful point. There is a fantastic meta-analysis published by the London School of Economics and the 5Rights Foundation of all the different studies that have been done on this around Europe. The hon. Lady referred to a specific study, which I hope to speak to the authors about. It is a good study, and perfectly sensible, but the issue is that it cannot find anything statistically significant because it looked at only 30 schools, with a sample size of about 1,200 pupils. It does not look at any natural experiments either, so it does not look at schools that are changing their policies.
Where we have good RCT-like evidence, like in the great study in Spain, where they looked at a province that changed its policy wholesale, we can see from those natural experiments the really powerful effects of in-school policies. I agree with the hon. Lady that this is not the only thing that we should do. The study she mentioned was not wrong; it just could never show us the things that people are interested in. Indeed, there is plenty of other evidence out there in these meta-analyses, and from Jonathan Haidt’s website, of really powerful in-school effects.
A study in the US shows that a class time-only rule does not give teachers as much benefit as they might expect. Research from the National Education Association found that 73% of teachers in schools that allow phone use between classes find that phones are disruptive during classes. The same is true here. The Department for Education’s national behaviour survey, published in April 2024, found that 35% of secondary school teachers reported mobile phones being used during lessons without permission. The problem is more pronounced for older children, unsurprisingly. Some 46% of pupils in years 10 to 11 reported mobile phones being used when they should not have been during “most or all” lessons. That is nearly half of pupils in most or all lessons reporting disruption, so the problem is absolutely there in the DFE’s data.
The idea that guidance has done the trick and that there is no longer a problem to solve is contradicted by the Department’s evidence. Work by the company Teacher Tapp, also known as School Surveys, similarly finds very high levels of problems and no signs of progress. Instead of guidance, all schools should be mandated and funded to have lockers and pouches, and to get kids to put smartphones away for the whole day, including breaks. Schools should be the beachhead and the first place that we re-create a smartphone-free childhood—seven hours in which we de-normalise being on the phone all the time for young people.
Why do we need a full ban, and not just guidance? I already gave some of the data showing that the guidance has not worked, but there are two other reasons. First, we need to support schools and have their back. From speaking to teachers and school leaders, I know that the pressures from parents to allow phones can be really severe on schools. Some parents, unfortunately, can be unreasonably determined that they must be able to contact their child directly at any minute, even though they are perfectly safe in schools. In the sorts of places where three and four-year-olds have smartphones, that is, I am afraid, normalised now, so a national ban would make things simpler and take the heat off schools.
Secondly, a full and total ban is needed as part of a wider resetting of social norms, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, about children and smartphones. Smartphones and social media are doing damage to education even when they are not being used in schools. Our new clause 48 aims to be proportionate, and subsection (2)(b) would allow for exceptions as appropriate, having learned the lessons of what has been done in other countries.
To come to the hon. Lady’s wider point, when I was a Health Minister, I wanted us to get going an equivalent of the famous five bits of fruit and veg a day for this field—other Members might remember “Don’t Die of Ignorance” or “Clunk Click Every Trip”. We need some big things to reset the culture and wake up a lot of people, who are not necessarily going to read Jonathan Haidt’s book, to dangers that they may be unaware of. The heavy exposure of our kids to addictive-by-design products of the tech industry is the smoking of our generation. As with smoking, the tech industry comes up with fake solutions that do not actually make things safe. In the 1950s, it was filters on cigarettes, and now it is the supposed parental filters on social media. Just like with smoking, there is unfortunately a powerful social gradient to unmonitored internet access, with the worst effects on the poorest.
I do not know what Ministers will do about our new clause this time round, and I do not know what they will do as the Bill goes through the other place, but I hope that they will end up implementing this idea at some point. I will take my hat off to them when they do.
Munira Wilson
I come at this new clause first and foremost as a parent before I look at it as an MP. Looking at it with both hats on, though, I have long supported the previous Government’s guidance to schools to try to ban mobile phones during the school day. For a long time, I have needed convincing that a legislative ban was required, but I have finally concluded that we probably need to move towards one, partly for the reasons that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston outlined. Some heads and school staff come under a lot of pressure from parents to allow the use of phones during the school day, but if this were a statutory requirement, the Government would have to provide the support needed to implement it.
Just this week, I talked to the headteacher of a secondary school in my constituency. He is very keen to implement a ban on phones during the school day, and he is trying, but kids are getting their phones out at various times and not staying off them. It is a fairly new school, but for some reason it was built without lockers, so there are no lockers. He has looked into purchasing lockers or Yondr pouches—the phone pouches that I believe the Irish Government have bought wholesale for every school in Ireland—and he said that that would cost him about £20,000, which he did not have in his budget. Putting the ban into statute would give headteachers and teaching staff the clout they need with parents who particularly want their children to have their phones during the school day, and the Government would need to resource the ban so that schools could implement it.
I draw Members’ attention to subsection (2) of the new clause, which deals with exemptions, because that is a very important point. Proper exemptions are important for young carers or children with health conditions that need monitoring via apps. School leaders and teachers know their children best, and they know which children need exemptions. I would be interested to know what the consequences would look like—would they fall on the school? I do not think the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston touched on that, but I would be interested in discussing another time how he thinks this ban could be enforced. It is just one of a suite of measures that we as policymakers need to take now, given the harm that phones and access to social media are undoubtedly doing to our children and young people.
Neil O'Brien
I anticipated that the hon. Member would say something of the sort. His argument is perfectly reasonable, and I tried to answer that exact point in my speech. We think that aspects of the Bill are too micro-managing, but we want central Government to take the heat for schools on this issue. That is both to make it easier for schools and, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, because there should be a proper plan to roll this out at scale, as is happening in other countries in Europe.
Tom Hayes
I understood the point that the hon. Member made in his speech, and I understand his clarification. I still struggle to see how the new clause fits in with what I regard as the Conservative party’s ideology around schooling and children’s wellbeing. It feels anomalous to ask headteachers and teachers to work within a ban, rather than trusting them to use the flexibility that the previous Government gave them.
One highlight of the Committee’s debate over the last few weeks has been the recognition that our teachers and headteachers know their students best. It is important that we give them all the trust and support that they deserve. I sympathise with what the hon. Member says about addictive apps, but for me it is not about banning, per se; it is about creating a viable and better alternative that gives children and teenagers much better things to do with their time.
Damian Hinds
The hon. Member is right about the difficulty with defining the term smartphone. People talk about a brick phone, a feature phone, a basic phone, a Nokia, a smartphone and an iPhone, but the truth is that there is no definition; smartphone is just a term. It originally came about when people did not want to use the brand name iPhone, because Samsung phones and other types of phone were available. It just means a smarter phone; it has more stuff on it. Some of the things that people worry about are not necessarily only available on smartphones. I looked recently at iMessage, and it is starting to look more like WhatsApp. Anything that can be used for a group chat has some of the issues that we find in schools that cover the teenage and sub-teenage years.
There are other things that people can get on a smartphone but not on a Nokia that are perfectly benign. Some parents are quite keen for their kids to be able to look at the weather. Some are keen to be able to use the tracking device to follow their child, or for their child to be able to use the mapping device to find their way home, so I agree with the hon. Member.
Damian Hinds
This is in danger of turning into a much longer speech than I anticipated.
Neil O'Brien
It is good to have this point of clarification. The clause uses the rather quaint phrase “mobile telephones” to capture everything, because the distinction between these devices is blurred. Among those who are interested in the smartphone issue, there is a separate debate about the use of dumbphones for things like walking to and from school, but there is no reason why even a dumbphone cannot cause massive distraction if it is out in class. A child could be texting somebody, for example, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the distinction between these things is blurred these days. That is why we have this catch-all term. It is clear, and it is possible to legislate on that basis, notwithstanding our other discussions outside the scope of this debate.
Damian Hinds
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for refocusing what I was saying, and he is absolutely right. Some of our worries in relation to children apply regardless of the piece of technology. Anything that demands our attention and is ever-present brings such risks.
Damian Hinds
We can have the classic, “Oh, the wording is technically flawed” argument—which to be fair to the Government, they have not deployed in this Bill Committee yet. We hope the amendment will be subsumed into the Bill, but the Government would never say, “Oh, we’ll just take that amendment and put it in.” Whoever is in Government never says that; they say, “Right, we accept this point. Now we’ll work on the detailed wording”.
Neil O’Brien
To answer the question that the hon. Member for Derby North asked directly, subsection (2)(b) says the policy
“is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate.”
I think this is—
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.
We have spent a great deal of time in Committee hearing from Opposition Members about autonomy: headteachers’ autonomy, school autonomy, and school leaders knowing exactly what is best for their pupils and communities. Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states that the policy
“is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate”,
but that means that the school leader could choose not to ban mobile phones for anybody in their school; there are exemptions, and they could decide that that is what they need. But that was not what I was going to talk about.
The use of mobile phones in schools should be decided at school level. It should reflect school values, processes and procedures, and not be decided in a directive or legislation from Government. Deciding it at school level would allow for the reasonable use of phones and technology, and it would allow for a balanced approach to technology. It could involve the school community in a discussion about what the phones and technology are being used for—a simple ban would not do that—and could include conversations about digital wellness and promoting healthier relationships, both offline and online, and a healthy approach to using technology at school, in the workplace and in the wider world. If we banned kids from using phones in school, we probably should ban people in their offices and in meetings from using them, because they do not pay attention either. Given how often we look up and see people not even bothering, how on earth can children learn while using mobile phones and technology in a measured and supportive way?
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the Birmingham study from February, which was mentioned previously. It found that banning smartphones in schools did not directly improve student academic performance or mental health. However, that research indicated that excessive phone use correlates with negative outcomes, yet there were no significant differences between the kids who had bans in their school and those who did not. It is about the wider picture, which has been talked about. I also draw the Committee’s attention to a survey conducted in November 2024 of over 1,000 teachers. One in five believed that a school-wide ban would not improve the relationships and attainment levels of children, and 41% agreed that they used smartphones as a teaching tool within their classrooms.
Neil O’Brien
The hon. Lady talks about the use of pupils’ own smartphones as a teaching tool in class. Does she have any worries about the equity of that? What happens to the kids who do not have smartphones in those situations?
Amanda Martin
That is a good point. Although we have to resource our schools properly to ensure appropriate iPads and computers that can be used, we would not want the situation the hon. Member described to continue either. We must ensure that schools are resourced.
We have talked about disruption in classrooms, and 20% of teachers said that the unauthorised use of mobile phones was one of the main causes. However, chatter and not sitting still accounted for 80% and 75% respectively, and disrespect to other pupils was much higher than the use of mobile phones. When asked whether a whole-school ban would improve learning, 18% felt that it would, but actually 57% felt that a class size reduction would improve behaviour much more. We need to give our schools the autonomy to have that conversation with their communities and to involve their students. We have student councils and we have parent groups, and we must involve them in the conversations on mobile phone use in schools so that we can teach digital wellness now and for the future.
Neil O’Brien
We have had an important and interesting debate, and we have heard a mix of arguments—some better than others, I think. The argument about drafting does not hold water. Subsection (2)(a) talks about students, subsection (4) talks about pupils, and subsection (2)(b) would allow a policy to be implemented in a sensible way. If Members do not agree with the new clause, they can just say so, rather than find lawyerly arguments against it.
However, there were some good points made. More than one thing can be a problem at a time, and this new clause is not the silver bullet. There are lots of problems with smartphone use outside of schools, as well as other things on top of that that we need to do. That is why I talked about this as a beachhead—as the first thing we should do. It is interesting that all over the world things are changing. In the US, the overwhelming majority of states either already have a ban or are on their way legislatively to getting one. The US is ground zero for a lot of these problems, and it is interesting that it is moving to take decisive action. I think we will, too.
For Ministers, there will always be a load of people who want to come to them and say that, “It’s all very complicated—I have been working with the industry,” “It’s correlation not causation,” or, “We should just let be.” There are things in the Bill where the Opposition have been critical of the Government for being more directive than we think is appropriate for the subject. On this issue, however, we think the subject is so important. In this House, we now all talk constantly about the mental health crisis among young people—it is such a big thing. It seems to be pretty incontrovertible that one of the main causes of that is the rise of the smartphone-based childhood. This provision could be an important first step towards tackling that massive national crisis.
I hope that at some point Ministers will think again about the provision when they have more time to reflect. The guidance on its own is not working; we can see from the data that it is not changing things enough. That is why I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 70—Appointment of Anti-Bullying Leads—
“In section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Determination by head teacher of behaviour policy), after subsection (2A) insert—
“(2B) For the purposes of preventing bullying under subsection (1)(b), the head teacher of a relevant school in England must appoint a member of staff to be the school’s Anti-Bullying Lead.
(2C) The Anti-Bullying Lead will have responsibility for developing the school’s anti-bullying strategy, which must—
(a) outline the steps which will be taken by the school to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils, particularly in relation to those pupils with protected characteristics;
(b) state how incidences of bullying are to be recorded and acted upon by the school; and
(c) detail the training relating to bullying awareness and prevention which will be made available to school staff.””
This new clause would require headteachers to appoint Anti-Bullying Leads, to lead on the development of anti-bullying strategies.
Neil O’Brien
We have a run of new clauses here—49, 50 and 51—and I will speak about them at the appropriate moment. I will not move new clause 50 in the interests of time. During lockdown a lot of parents, including me, gained an even greater respect for the teaching profession, yet we do not treat teachers like other professionals. We do not expect doctors or lawyers to put up with the kind of abuse that is sadly still far too common for schoolteachers. The Bill does many things, some of them good, but as an editorial in the TES pointed out, it is strangely silent on discipline and the right of teachers and pupils to have a safe place to work. To fix that, we have tabled these new clauses, which can be taken together.
The first concerns properly managing and measuring the situation. What gets measured gets managed, but at the moment we have far too little data on the state of discipline in our schools and in alternative provision. That is why new clause 49 provides for an annual report, and it locks in the current national behaviour survey, which is so important and creates wider and regular reporting of Government action on this subject. Endless polls show that it is one of the top issues facing teachers. It is one of the most important things to them, and we know that it drives good people out of this most valuable profession.
New clause 50, which I will not move today, would create an annual report on alternative provision for exactly the same reason, as well as for reasons concerning achievement and behaviour in AP. I will speak about new clause 51 at the appropriate moment, but it is about encouraging Ministers to go further on the discipline agenda, which I know they want to do. It is so vital to academic achievement in our schools, but it is also vital to a decent childhood, to not having to live in fear and to an orderly society.
Ellie Chowns
New clause 70 concerns anti-bullying work in schools. Bullying is a serious and a widespread problem. Each year, one in five children report being bullied. It has devastating effects on children’s mental health, their sense of belonging and their ability to thrive. It is a leading cause of school refusal, failure to attend school and disruptive behaviour.
Children who are afraid to attend school miss opportunities to learn and grow. Bullying creates long-term harm. Victims of bullying often suffer lasting consequences into adulthood, including poor mental health, unemployment and a lack of qualifications. People who are bullied may also struggle with relationships and lack life chances. Bullying has unequal effects; it affects different groups unequally. Some groups are significantly more at risk, including children with special educational needs and disabilities, those living in poverty and young carers. Bullying also costs the economy an estimated £11 billion annually due to its impact on education, health and productivity, so it is a serious problem.
The new clause would require the appointment of anti-bullying leads in schools. Evidence shows that a whole-school approach is the most effective way to tackle bullying, but that requires co-ordination by a senior staff member. Appointing an anti-bullying lead potentially alongside and within existing roles such in safeguarding or pastoral support ensures a focused and effective strategy. It is important to record bullying. Systematically recording incidents helps schools to identify patterns, implement interventions and measure progress. This duty, which is already in place in Northern Ireland, can be streamlined with digital tools. Transparent reporting fosters trust, supports accountability and creates safer and more inclusive schools without burdening staff.
It is also important to look at teacher training. Currently, there is no requirement for trainee teachers to receive anti-bullying training, and nearly half—42%—of teachers report feeling ill equipped to address bullying. The new clause will require schools to outline what anti-bullying training is provided to staff. Short, targeted training equips teachers to prevent and respond to bullying effectively, creating safer schools and improving wellbeing and learning outcomes for all pupils.
This matters because of the effects that I talked about on children and young people. We hear heartbreaking stories all the time. The Anti-Bullying Alliance collects testimonies from children and young people. One young person said,
“All the way through year 10 and 11, I ate my lunch in the toilet.”
Another child said that it “scars you for life.” Bullying has devastating effects, but it is not inevitable. With the right systems and the right leadership in place, we can make a difference and make schools safe for everyone. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this new clause.
Stephen Morgan
New clause 49 sets out a requirement to publish an annual report on the behaviour of pupils in mainstream state-funded schools, and I will explain why the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston should withdraw it. The Department for Education already publishes the data from the NBS—the National Behaviour Survey—in an annual report. That is publicly available on the gov.uk website.
Neil O’Brien
This is a very positive moment. Will the Minister commit to continuing that survey, which is, as he says, so important?
Stephen Morgan
I will certainly take that point away.
The NBS reports provide an accurate, timely and authoritative picture of behaviour across England. The surveys allow us to build up a national picture over time, and act as a signpost to what schools need. By triangulating the views of professionals, children and parents, Government officials can gain better understanding of behaviour and of what is needed to support teachers and school leaders in practice. My Department will continue to use data from the NBS to inform future strategy and policy improvements on behaviour in schools.
Mr Betts, you will be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause that I expect to respond to. I conclude by thanking you and all the Chairs for expertly chairing the Committee; all Clerks and civil servants who have supported the smooth running of our proceedings; and all Committee members who have contributed so diligently to this landmark legislation. As a Government, we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for every child in every part of the country. This Bill is one step further in our plan for change for children and families.
New clause 49 creates a redundancy and we do not believe it is necessary to legislate on this issue. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw the clause.
Neil O’Brien
I echo those words, Mr Betts, and I thank the Minister for them.
I was pleased to hear the Minister’s positive comments about the National Behaviour Survey, though we have a paucity of data about this most vital issue, and it would be better to go much further. I also agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, who spoke so powerfully about the impact of bullying. One can never be too much on that absolutely vital issue. We will not press the new clause today, but we look to the Government to go beyond what already exists, and at least to maintain what exists now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Duty for schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police
“(1) Where an act listed in subsection (2) takes place which involves the use or threat of force against a member of a school’s staff, the school must report the incident to the police.
(2) An act must be reported to the police where—
(a) it is directed towards a member of school staff or their property; and
(b) it takes place—
(i) on school property; or
(ii) because of the victim’s status as a member of a school’s staff.
(3) The provisions of this section do not require or imply a duty on the police to take specific actions in response to such reports.” —(Neil O’Brien.)
This new clause would create a duty for all schools to report acts or threats of violence against their staff to the police. It would not create a requirement for the police to charge the perpetrator.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause is a continuation of the debate we were just having. It is time to ensure that all acts and threats of violence against teachers are reported to the police. It is very clear from the drafting of the clause that we are not looking to criminalise children, but we should not expect teachers to suck up abuse that we would never expect other professionals to. If we log what is going on, we have a chance of avoiding things that can escalate over time.
At the moment in Scotland, members of NASUWT are taking industrial action because of the failure of authorities to create discipline. The unions say that teachers
“report being told at debriefing meetings that their lessons are ‘not fun or engaging enough’”
That is absolutely extraordinary. NASUWT notes:
“A culture where there are no consequences for poor behaviour is not setting up pupils well for adult life and fails the employers’ duty of care towards its staff”.
It also says:
“The wholesale adoption of the restorative approach to pupil discipline has definitely been a problem”.
Mike Corbett of NASUWT said:
“You can’t offer a quiet chat and no serious consequences for this level of disruptive behaviour.”
We find ourselves, on this matter, in total agreement with the teaching unions and their wise words on this subject. In England, a Channel 4 exposé sadly showed the incredible extent of the problem and why we need to do far more to address it.
We want those who would lift their hands to a teacher and engage in an act of violence, intimidation or threat to know that it will absolutely be reported to the police. It is sometimes good to make a credible pre-commitment to things, and people need to know it is never acceptable to do those things. They need to know that there will be automatic consequences and that they should not expect that people will just turn the other cheek. People who are trying to help them—dedicating their lives to helping them—should not be used as punch bags. That is only one of the things we need to do, but this new clause is about resetting expectations around behaviour. If the Government will not support the new clause as drafted, we hope that they will support some version of it.
Catherine McKinnell
I agree with the sentiments behind the new clause. Any form of violence in school is completely and utterly unacceptable and should not be tolerated. By law, schools must have a behaviour policy. In the most serious cases, suspensions and permanent exclusion may be necessary to ensure that teachers and pupils are protected from disruption.
Schools or trusts as employers already have a statutory duty, outlined in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of school staff at work. Where violence is involved on school premises, schools should take immediate and appropriate action. Should the incident constitute a potential criminal offence, it is for the school as an employer to consider involving the police, having followed the advice contained in the “When to call the police” guidance for schools and colleges by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, written in partnership with the Department for Education and the Home Office.
There are already appropriate provisions and guidance for schools to prevent and respond to violence on their premises. That includes guidance on when to involve the police, so the new clause is likely to impose an additional administrative burden on school leaders. Clearly, important points have been made, but, on the basis I have outlined, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the clause.
Neil O’Brien
I absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiment—of course she wants only the right thing for pupils and teachers. However, I will push the new clause to a vote, because we want to think about how we can go further on all these things to create the safe workplace that both teachers and pupils deserve.
In another part of the forest, there is an argument about non-crime hate incidents and logging them. The arguments made by the Government about logging them is that one thing leads to another. As I said before, we do not wish to criminalise children, but logging where actual acts of violence are taking place is an important resource for the police and other social services. We think that something along those lines would be useful, and I am keen to push this to a vote, but I know the Minister will think about everything extra that she can do to try to create a safe workplace.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Government are obviously reviewing the national curriculum at the moment. During our earlier debates in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out that control of the national curriculum is an incredible power, yet, to date, it has operated really on precedent, custom, tradition and everyone being reasonable. This new clause aims to formalise that process a bit more.
At the moment, of course, the Government are taking advice from an independent review—very sensibly—but, legally, they do not actually have to take account of that; they could make whatever decision they wanted. In another Bill—the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill—the Government are centralising control over a whole bunch of stuff about qualifications and standards.
This new clause just sets up, for the first time, a proper process to formalise how the national curriculum is revised. It is an incredibly strong power and yet it is one that has operated—in one sense, nobly—on the assumption of everyone just behaving reasonably and people being “good chaps”, as it were, in the old parlance. This measure would put an actual formal legal process around such hugely important changes.
Catherine McKinnell
The current system for reviewing the curriculum works well, as the ongoing independent curriculum and assessment review shows, and has stood the test of time for successive Governments. The legislation gives Ministers the flexibility to review and develop the curriculum in the most appropriate way for the circumstances of the time, while requiring them to consult, and to provide Parliament with appropriate levels of scrutiny.
Requiring the creation of new organisations and processes is rarely the best way to improve outcomes. The proposed system would be inflexible and bureaucratic rather than helpful. New clause 55 would mean that, following any review of whether to change the national curriculum, such as through our curriculum and assessment review, the Secretary of State would have to set up another independent review to advise how to change the programmes of study.
Also, by requiring a positive, rather than negative, resolution of changes, and of any changes beyond the review’s recommendations, this measure could add unnecessary delays and uncertainty for teachers about what was going to be changed in the curriculum and when. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Neil O’Brien
While our concerns remain, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 58
Right to review school curriculum material
“Where requested by the parent or carer of a child on the school’s pupil roll, a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum, including those provided by external, third-party, charitable or commercial providers.”—(Neil O’Brien.)
This new clause would ensure that parents can view materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Over recent years, we have been in an absolutely extraordinary situation. Very controversial materials from various third party private providers have been used in RSE—relationships and sex education—lessons, yet parents have been denied access to the materials that are being used to teach their children, even though it is them paying, as taxpayers, and it is their children who are being exposed to these materials. That is obviously unacceptable.
Various private providers of this material, including for-profit companies, have tried to hide behind copyright law, or have tried to make parents sign agreements, such as that they can see the materials, but only on the strict conditions that they do not quote from them or talk about them, effectively crippling and ending public debate about them. Parents need to see, and to be able to act upon what they see, including discussing it in public and making formal complaints. That requires having a copy of the material and being able to refer to it openly.
An important case brought by the campaign group “No Secret Lessons” may establish such rights, but, despite a hearing five months ago, we are still—strangely—awaiting a verdict in its case. I pay tribute to its work in trying to bring back some common sense here.
New clause 58 seeks to put into statute the right to have access to the materials that are being used to educate our children about controversial subjects. That, itself, should not be a controversial idea. The intent is that this right, in primary legislation, would cut through the issues around copyright and prevent the industry from trying to stop public discussion that actually needs to happen.
The context is that the Government’s response to the consultation on gender-questioning children and RSE is long overdue, and we look forward to hearing the outcome of those processes soon. I hope that the Minister may be able to say some more about when we can expect to see those things.
However, whatever the outcome of those reviews, I hope that we can agree on an important principle: that parents should be allowed to know what their children are being taught, and that there should be no secret lessons.
Tom Hayes
I wish to speak briefly about the new clause, mainly to test the waters with the hon. Gentleman who tabled it. Does he, like me, have concerns that, if parents and carers are able to access teaching materials, they may meet with the teachers who drew up the materials and raise significant concerns, which may not always be well founded?
For instance, a teacher I spoke with recently raised concerns about a parent who had demanded to see their teaching materials on the basis that they cited Marcus Rashford as an example of somebody campaigning for social justice, which the parent was deeply concerned about. The teacher raised with me their concern that the conversation with the parent had had a chilling or stifling effect on their willingness to cite Marcus Rashford as a social justice hero in the future.
Would it not be a better way forward for teachers to be held accountable for their materials by the headteacher and the school’s governing body? That would protect parents or guardians from the minority of parents or carers who raise concerns based on unfounded reasons that have a wider impact on the teaching that is delivered.
Neil O'Brien
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way so that I can directly answer the question he posed to me. The problem is not schools, which are bound by freedom of information, but a bunch of private for-profit providers that are inappropriately hiding behind copyright law to deny people the right to even see what is being taught. Different people can have different opinions on what is being taught—that is reasonable in a democracy, and it is important that we have sensibly founded conversations and all those things—but does the hon. Member agree that, given that a parent is paying for their kid’s education, they should have the right to see what they are being taught?
Tom Hayes
I welcome that clarification. I continue to have concerns, because whether or not somebody is paying for their child’s education—I would obviously wish that they were not paying—I still think it is important to have quality education and critical thinking and to potentially use inspirational figures and history to make points. That goes across all types of educational provider, so my concern remains. Thinking back to the conversation I had recently with a teacher, the last thing I want is for them to go into a classroom feeling wary or in any way diminished in their ability to freely and critically educate and provide children with access to all kinds of information, and not just narrow viewpoints.
Catherine McKinnell
It is right that parents and carers should be able to access and understand what their child is taught at school, so that they can continue to support their child’s learning at home and answer questions. However, that should be achieved in a way that does not increase school and teacher workload.
The new clause could require schools to maintain and collate a substantial number of materials across various platforms, covering all subjects and school years, down to every single worksheet, presentation, planning document or text. That is not necessary. There are already many ways in which parents can engage with their child’s curriculum that would not add to teacher workload. The national curriculum, which will be taught in academies and maintained schools, is published on gov.uk. Maintained schools and academies are required to publish details of how a parent can access further information about the school’s curriculum.
Schools must also have a written policy for relationships and sex education, which must be developed in consultation with parents. The statutory guidance is clear that this should include providing examples of the resources they intend to use, to reassure parents and enable them to continue conversations at home. We will make sure that that is reinforced when we update the guidance. Finally, parents can be reassured that Ofsted reviews curriculum materials to ensure that they support pupils to achieve good outcomes.
The new clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of a widespread problem that would justify the extra burden and bureaucracy it would create for schools. If parents have concerns, there are ways of dealing with them. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
Neil O'Brien
I listened to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East and, broadly speaking, agree with everything he said. I am absolutely in favour of a balanced diet and the free exchange of different ideas, and nothing we are proposing in any way speaks against that. What we propose is in fact a way to ensure that that happens, by allowing parents to see what their children are being taught.
I find myself out of sympathy with the Minister’s argument that this is somehow a massive bureaucratic requirement. With state schools, there is FOI, so parents are able to access these materials. The problem has come with private providers using copyright law to escape the same transparency that we expect of schools normally, which is not right.
I do not accept that the new clause would require people to have 20 years-worth of materials. It simply states that
“a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum”.
That is in the present tense, so this is not some huge bureaucratic burden. The school has the materials, and the only question is whether the parents can see them, take them away and talk about them to other people.
At the moment, free debate on such things is being stifled, and a hugely important principle is being denied to people. We have a right to see what our kids are being taught in schools. For that reason, we will press the new clause to a vote.
Neil O'Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
As Ministers look at new clause 63, they may think it seems strangely familiar, and I must confess that it is a piece of stolen intellectual property. As you will recognise, Mr Betts, it is a rip-off of new Labour’s Education Act 2002. Funnily enough, it is a part of that Act that was passed as legislation but never commenced. It is a good thing in itself, as it enables Ministers to set up areas of innovation in our schools, and it is a part of a wider good thing: the spirit of innovation and reform in our schools of the early Blair years, which we want Ministers to return to.
In the health service, there has been a 40-year discussion about why innovation is so hard and why innovations do not spread in the NHS. In schools, although the situation is not perfect, it is definitely better because of parental choice and the reforms under Lord Baker, Lord Adonis, the coalition and beyond. I commend to all members of the Committee Lord Adonis’s superb book “Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools”, which brilliantly captures the spirit of that era and what that Government were trying to achieve.
Although we think this would be a useful power, our purpose of drawing attention to it is as much about the spirit of what we want to see in our schools. There have been some changes of tone from Ministers during the course of this Bill Committee, and we hope we can persuade them to go further in the same direction. That is why we have discussed this new clause, but we will not be pressing it to a vote.
Catherine McKinnell
Things really can only get better—[Laughter.]
I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the existing provision in part 1 of the Education Act 2002, and his open admission that the new clause draws its inspiration from it. That Act, in the early days of academies, introduced powers to facilitate innovation that were designed to encourage schools to consider barriers to raising standards for their pupils in their particular circumstances, and to explore innovative options that might not previously have been considered. It provided a means of promoting school freedoms and flexibilities, and was an effective strategic tool that enabled schools, local authorities and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, as it was, to test new ideas. It encouraged schools and local authorities to re-examine their existing practices and make use of freedoms and flexibilities that they already had. It was not designed to allow long-term flexibility, as this new clause is; rather any exemption is time limited.
The Act provoked consideration of real and perceived barriers to raising standards, and many schools discovered that not all innovative ideas require an exemption from legislation, because the necessary freedoms and flexibilities already exist. Annual reporting shows that only 32 orders were made between 2002 and 2010 using the power. We understand that the last order under the power was made in 2012. Since then, schools and trusts have innovated and tested ideas without the 2002 powers being necessary or used. Evidence-based practice and innovation is now the norm in many of our schools and trusts. There is a range of programmes, such as curricular hubs, behaviour hubs and teaching schools, geared to driving schools towards spreading evidence-based practice, and away from doing other things.
The Department works closely with the Education Endowment Foundation, which is independent from Government and trusted by the sector, to understand which interventions and approaches are most effective in terms of school improvement and raising attainment, and to provide guidance and support to schools on that. As part of that, it carries out trials of new approaches that look to have a high potential to improve outcomes. Where a new and innovative practice works, we want schools to be able to implement it. For example, based on robust EEF evidence of impact, programmes such as embedding formative assessments and mathematics mastery are being provided to the sector at greater scale, supported by Department for Education funding that subsidises the cost of participation.
The Bill guarantees a core provision for all children. Through it, we are providing a floor, not a ceiling, and the measures do not prevent schools and trusts from innovating and adapting above that framework. Our vision for driving high and rising standards centres on expert teaching and leadership in a system with wide freedoms, high support and high challenge, backed up by the removal of barriers, so that every child can achieve and thrive. We believe that more of the flexibility currently offered to academies should be offered to all schools, and we are working with teachers, leaders and the sector to design our wider reforms. If attempts to innovate are prevented by legislation, we want to hear about it, because we want all children to benefit from the best the system has to offer. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw his new clause.
Neil O'Brien
It is nice to hear the Minister praising the resources that are there for school-led improvement, so we hope that Ministers will look again at the recent decision to cut or curtail things such as mathematics, physics, Latin, computing and the like. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 64
Pay and conditions of school support staff in England
“(1) A School Support Staff Negotiating Body shall be created to make recommendations to the Secretary of State about the pay and conditions of school support staff in England.
(2) The Secretary of State may by order set out the recommended pay and conditions for school support staff in England based on the recommendations of the School Support Staff Negotiating Body.
(3) The Secretary of State may by order make provision requiring the remuneration of support staff at an Academy school to be at least equal to the amount specified in, or determined in accordance with, the order.
(4) Subsection (5) applies where—
(a) an order under this section applies to a member of school support staff at an Academy, and
(b) the contract of employment or for services between the member of school support staff at the Academy and the relevant proprietor provides for the member of school support staff to be paid remuneration that is less than the amount specified in, or determined in accordance with, the order.
(5) Where this subsection applies—
(a) the member of school support staff’s remuneration is to be determined and paid in accordance with any provision of the order that applies to them; and
(b) any provision of the contract mentioned in subsection (4)(b) or of the Academy arrangements entered into with the Secretary of State by the relevant proprietor has no effect to the extent that it makes provision that is prohibited by, or is otherwise inconsistent with, the order.
(c) In determining the conditions of employment or service of a member of school support staff at an Academy, the relevant proprietor must have regard to any provision of an order under this section that relates to conditions of employment or service.”—(Neil O’Brien.)
This new clause would mean that Academies could treat orders made by the Secretary of State in relation to pay and conditions for school support staff as a floor, not a ceiling, on pay, and would allow Academies to have regard to the conditions of employment for school support staff set out by the Secretary of State while not requiring Academies to follow them.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil O'Brien
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Minister just talked about the principle of having a floor, not a ceiling. Through our debates, we have now established that for teachers, but of course teachers are not a majority of the school workforce. The majority of the workforce are those who are sometimes called school support staff. These people are no less worthy than teachers of our praise and admiration. They fulfil all manner of roles, from the most essential to the most demanding.
Through this new clause, we ask that the same principles that are to be applied to teachers’ pay—we hope that those will translate into reality—should apply to the majority of school staff: school support staff. Although trust leaders anticipated the school support staff negotiating body, some were surprised about the proposal for it to cut across academy funding arrangements, and not all had anticipated that it would apply to them. A number have said to me that they will be very concerned if their freedoms to pay more to retain the best school support staff were, in effect, taken away from them, because that would have a devastating effect on their schools.
Legislation on this issue is being considered in another place, but I hope that we can establish that Ministers will maintain that vital freedom to pay more, particularly in high-demand areas, to retain good people in our schools. A person does not have to be a teacher to play a crucial part in the education of our children, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We hope that the same principles that Ministers say will apply to teachers can also be established for the rest of the school workforce.
Catherine McKinnell
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s celebration of school support staff. He is absolutely right: they are the beating heart of schools up and down the country. For that very reason, provisions to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body are currently going through Parliament as part of the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill’s clause 30 and schedule 3, which pertain to the SSSNB, were debated in Committee in the House of Commons on 17 December 2024, and the Bill is about to move to Report stage in the House. Any amendments relating to the school support staff negotiating body should therefore be considered as part of the Employment Rights Bill, and the issues that the hon. Gentleman outlined will be considered as part of the work of the school support staff negotiating body. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.
Neil O'Brien
I am glad to hear the Minister endorse the principle of a floor, not a ceiling, for school support staff. We will withdraw the new clause but press it elsewhere, so that we can establish that principle, on which I hope we can all agree. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 67
Registration of children eligible for free school meals
“After section 512ZA of the Education Act 1996 (power to charge for meals etc.) insert—
‘512ZAA Registration of children eligible for free school meals
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that all children in England who are eligible to receive free school meals are registered to receive free school meals.
(2) The Secretary of State may make provision for children to be registered for free school meals upon their parents or guardians demonstrating the child’s eligibility through an application for relevant benefits.’”—(Munira Wilson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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.
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.
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—
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.
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—
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.
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.
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.
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—
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 85, in clause 51, page 111, line 7, after “authorities” insert “, including academy trusts,”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 48, in clause 51, page 112, line 4, at end insert—
“(5) After section 7A (withdrawal of notices under section 7), insert—
“7B New schools to allocate no more than half of pupil places on basis of faith
A new school for which proposals are sought by a local authority under section 7 must, where the school is oversubscribed, provide that no more than half of all places are allocated on the basis of or with reference to—
(a) the pupil’s religious faith, or presumed religious faith;
(b) the religious faith, or presumed religious faith, of the pupil’s parents.””.
Clause stand part.
Neil O'Brien
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will begin by asking a question up front, so that the Minister has time to confer with officials if she needs to in order to reply.
We learned during the debate on clause 50 that, as well as existing schools, local authorities will be able to go to the schools adjudicator regarding school openings. Will a local authority be able to object to the published admissions number of a school in another local authority, or is it limited to schools within its own area? Possible answers are: yes, they will be able to object about another authority; no, they will not be able to; or, the Government have not decided yet. As drafted, the Bill does not tell us what the Government’s intent is.
I will now speak to our amendment 85 and clause 51. Local authorities can already establish local authority schools if there is really no one who wants to start a new school, although, as the Government’s notes to the Bill rightly say, the current legal framework for opening new schools is tilted heavily towards all new schools—mainstream, special, and so on—being academies. As we have discussed, clause 44 repeals the requirement to turn failing local authority schools into academies; clause 51 is effectively the other half of that shift away from academisation. It ends the rule that new schools must be academies and allows local authorities to choose to set up new local authority-run schools instead. Both changes will reduce the flow of new schools into the best performing trusts. For that reason, we think it is a mistake.
Ministers keep saying that they want greater consistency —that seems to be one of the guiding principles of the Bill—but in the long term the combination of clause 51 and clause 44 will leave us with two types of school. That will sustain the confusion that we talked about in previous debates, where the local authority is simultaneously the regulator and a provider in the market it is regulating. The schools system is currently a halfway house: more than 80% of secondary schools are now academies, but less than half of primaries are, so just over half of all state schools are academies, and most academies are now in a trust.
I understand why Ministers have moved to find a legislative slot, and I know that anti-academies campaigners and people who do not like academies will welcome the clause. My question is where this is taking us in terms of a structure for the system as a whole. The Minister will say, “We want the flexibility to set up local authority schools,” but the combination of clauses 44 and 51 means that, in the long term, we will continue to have two types of school, rather than continue the organic move of recent years toward a system that is clearly based on academies and trusts, and trusts as the drivers of overall performance. That became apparent during the Government’s announcement the other day of their consultation on the new intervention regime. Ministers are now talking about RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—as one of the drivers of school improvement, leading to lots of questions about where the balance is between RISE and trusts, and what happens where the advice of a RISE team contradicts a trust’s views about what should be done in the case of a school with problems.
We have rehearsed a lot of these issues before, but I am keen to get an answer from the Minister about whether, in the case of new school openings in a different local authority, another local authority would be able to send the question of that school’s PAN to the schools adjudicator under clause 50. I am also keen to get the Minister’s sense of the finality of the system. Are Ministers happy for us to have just local authority schools and academies in the long term, and do not think that that is a problem they need to address? Do they not have a vision for the final situation, or do they have some other vision that the Minister wants to set out?
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome clause 51 and its counterpart, not least because we desperately need new special schools. The previous Government approved fewer than half of the 85 applications from councils to open SEND free schools in 2022. This is a real part of unblocking that, so we agree with the Government. We tabled amendment 48 because a potential loophole is created in the now well-established rules on faith-based selection. Those rules apply to academies and will continue to do so, but under clause 51 not all new schools will be academies. The amendment would bring all new schools into line with the current established principles of faith-based selection for academies. It is a very simple amendment. I think the error was made inadvertently during drafting, and hopefully the Government will support it.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston for tabling amendment 85. When a local authority thinks that a new school is needed in its area, it will be required to seek proposals for a new school from proposers other than local authorities. That includes academy trusts, as well as other bodies such as charitable foundations and faith bodies. Local authorities will be required to seek proposals for different types of school, including academy schools, foundation schools and voluntary schools.
I appreciate that the hon. Member may be looking for assurance that proposals for new academies will be sought and welcomed as part of the new invitation process. I can absolutely reassure him on that. We are simply ending the presumption that all new schools should be academies and allowing proposals for all types of school, so that the proposal that best meets the needs of children and families in an area is taken forward. All types of schools have an important role to play in driving the high standards that we want to see in every school, so that all children are supported to achieve and thrive.
I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for tabling amendment 48, which seeks to restrict the proportion of places that can be allocated on the basis of faith to a maximum of 50% for all new schools established following a local authority invitation to establish one. In practice, it would only make a difference to a new voluntary aided foundation and a voluntary controlled school with a faith designation.
I recognise that the hon. Member is seeking to ensure that new schools are inclusive and that all children have access to a good education. That is very much a mission that we share. The Government support the ability of schools designated with a religious character to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. This can support parents who wish to have their children educated in line with their religious beliefs. However, it is for a school’s admission authority to decide whether to adopt such arrangements.
The removal of the legal presumption that all new schools be academies is intended to ensure that local authorities have the flexibility to make the best decision to meet the needs of their communities. Decision makers will carefully consider proposals from all groups and commission the right new schools to meet need and to ensure that every child has the opportunity to achieve and thrive. On that basis, I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham will not press her amendment.
Clause 51 will end the legal presumption that new schools should be academies. It will require local authorities to invite proposals for academies and other types of school when they think that a new school should be established and will give them the option to put forward their own proposals. The changes will ensure that new schools are opened by the provider with the best offer for local children and families. They will better align local authorities’ responsibilities to secure sufficient school places with their ability to open new schools. We are committed to ensuring that new schools are opened in the right place at the right time, so that all children have access to a core offer of a high-quality education that breaks down the barriers to opportunity.
I turn to hon. Members’ specific questions. There was quite a wide-ranging debate on the amendments, which is typical of this very assiduous Committee. As I said on the faith schools cap provision, we want to allow proposals for different types of school that will promote a diverse school system that supports parental choice. As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire said, we have a rich and diverse school system. Our priority is driving high and rising standards so that children can thrive in whatever type of school they are in. We will work in partnership with all types of school, including faith schools, as part of that mission.
Proposers, including faith groups, will be able to put forward a proposal in response to an invitation from the local authority and where the local authority thinks that a new school should be established in the area. As is already the case, faith groups can put forward proposals for a new voluntary or foundation school outside the invitation process, for example where they think that there is a need for particular places to replace an independent school or to replace one or more foundations or voluntary schools that have a religious character.
Although designated faith schools that are not subject to the 50% cap are not restricted in the number of places that they can offer with reference to faith when oversubscribed, it is for the admission authority to decide whether to adopt such arrangements. Indeed, there is real variation: some choose to prioritise only a certain proportion of their places with reference to faith in order to ensure that places are available for other children, regardless of faith, while many do not use faith-based oversubscription criteria at all. Regardless of the admissions policy set by the admission authority, faith schools remain subject to the same obligations as any other state-funded school to actively promote the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs, and to teach a broad and balanced curriculum. That will apply to all schools as part of the changes introduced by this Bill.
Let me say in response to concerns about faith schools being less socioeconomically and ethnically diverse that, to be fair, it is not true of all faith schools. Catholic schools are among the most ethnically diverse types of school. Faith schools tend to have intakes that reflect wider intakes; they draw from a much larger catchment area, which can often create a more diverse intake. The Department does not collect data about the admission policies of schools with a religious character, and we do not have any data on the proportion of children admitted to a school on the basis of faith or how many are able to access a preferred place on the basis of their faith. That means that there is no data to support capping faith admissions on the ground that they are restricting children and parents from accessing the school of their choice.
On the role of the adjudicator, which I think the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asked about specifically, we will set out details in regulations, but it is our intention that local authorities will be able to object to the published admission numbers in another local authority.
I hope that I have responded to all the concerns that have been raised. I commend the clause to the Committee.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 48, in clause 51, page 112, line 4, at end insert—
“(5) After section 7A (withdrawal of notices under section 7), insert—
‘7B New schools to allocate no more than half of pupil places on basis of faith
A new school for which proposals are sought by a local authority under section 7 must, where the school is oversubscribed, provide that no more than half of all places are allocated on the basis of or with reference to—
(a) the pupil’s religious faith, or presumed religious faith;
(b) the religious faith, or presumed religious faith, of the pupil’s parents.’”—(Ian Sollom.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Catherine McKinnell
Clause 56 contains a provision for the Secretary of State to make changes consequential on the provisions of the Bill to other legislation, as well as to existing primary legislation. It has been drafted to allow the Secretary of State to make consequential changes to other Acts preceding this Bill or those that are passing before Parliament in this Session. It is always possible that necessary changes to legislation may be identified after a Bill’s passage. Given the breadth of legal areas that the Bill covers, it is prudent to provide a failsafe should anything have been missed. Without one, there is a risk to the coherence of the legislative landscape that the Bill creates. The clause sets out that regulations making changes to primary regulation are subject to the affirmative procedure, and that those making changes to other legislation are subject to the negative procedure.
Clause 57 contains a financial provision necessary to the provisions of the Bill that require expenditure. It sets out the expectation that Parliament will fund any expenditure and any future increase in it incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to this Bill.
Clause 58 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions in the Bill. It is a standard clause for all legislation. As the Committee is aware, Westminster does not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the relevant devolved Governments. However, there are no provisions of this Bill that engage that process.
Clause 59 sets out when the provisions in the Bill come into force. The general provisions on extent, commencement and the short title come into force on the day of Royal Assent. Subsection (2) sets out the provisions that will come into force two months after the Bill is passed. All the provisions will come into force on a day or days to be appointed by the Secretary of State through regulations. Those regulations may appoint different days for different purposes or different areas. The Secretary of State may also make regulations that provide for transitional or saving provision in connection with commencement.
Clause 60 provides that the short title of the Bill will be Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2025. For the reasons outlined, I commend the clauses to the Committee.
On new clause 10, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss removing the common law defence of reasonable punishment. Keeping children safe could not be more important to the Government. We are already taking swift action through these landmark reforms to children’s social care. It is the biggest overhaul in a generation. The Government are committed, through our plan for change, to ensuring that children growing up in our country get the best start in life through wider investment in family hubs and parenting support. This landmark Bill puts protecting children at its heart.
To be absolutely clear, the Government do not condone violence or the abuse of children, and there are laws in place to protect children against those things. Child protection agencies and the police treat allegations of abuse very seriously. They will investigate and take appropriate action, including prosecution, where there is sufficient evidence of an offence having been committed. Local authorities, police and healthcare professionals have a clear duty to act immediately to protect children if they are concerned that a child is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.
This Bill will put children’s future at the centre of rebuilding public services, requiring higher standards for all children in need of help and protection. It is a key step towards delivering the Government’s opportunity mission to break the link between a young person’s background and future success.
We do not intend to legislate on the defence at this stage, but we will review the position when we have evidence from Wales of the impact since it was removed. Wales will publish its findings by the end of 2025 and we will look at them carefully. We recognise that parents have different views and approaches to disciplining their children. We need to consider their voices, and those of the child, trusted stakeholders and people who might be disproportionately affected by the removal of the defence, in making any decisions.
Let us also be clear: those children who have been abused or murdered by their parents would not have been covered by the defence of reasonable punishment. Crown Prosecution Service guidance is very clear about what is acceptable within the law to justify reasonable punishment.
The Bill introduces many measures to keep children safe—for example, requiring local authorities to have and maintain children not in school registers; improving information sharing between agencies; making sure that education and childcare settings are involved in local safeguarding partnerships; and making it a requirement for every local authority to have multi-agency child protection teams. Nationally, we are rolling out the vital multi-agency family health and child protection reforms through the Families First partnership programme from April 2025, and we are delivering parenting support through our family hubs programme in several local authorities.
The protection of children is critical. The Bill takes important steps to improve safeguarding. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for North Herefordshire not to press the new clause.
On amendment 11, I appreciate what the hon. Member has set out in relation to having a delayed implementation for the removal of the defence of reasonable punishment. As I mentioned in response to new clause 10, we do not intend to legislate at this stage, but we will wait for Wales to publish its impact report on removing the defence, which is due at the end of 2025. We will look at the evidence of the potential impact before making such a significant legislative change. When we review the position, we will ensure that due thought and consideration are given to ensuring that there is an appropriate implementation period. On that basis, I invite her not to press the amendment.
Neil O’Brien
I rise to speak only to clause 56, which is a big old Henry VIII power. I am sure that their lordships will want to explore it in detail. In the interests of time, I have not tabled an amendment to it at this stage and I will not go into lots of detail, but it is always important to note such things. It is no small thing to give the Government the power to amend primary legislation without coming back to the House. Of course, there are certain limits to what they could do by means of such measures, but it is a big deal.
I place it on the record that the Minister will be well aware of some of the concerns about the clause that are coming to us from civil society. I am sure that she will have seen the comments from Jen Persson, the director of Defend Digital Me, on the information powers in the Bill. When we make laws in this way, it relies on someone noticing and raising an objection to Parliament to get any kind of democratic debate, and we can only stop such things in hindsight.
As the Minister will know, Defend Digital Me has put forward 30 different areas and proposals that it has concerns about, particularly on the information side. On previous clauses, we debated the constant unique identifier and eventually using the NHS number for that, and other things that we have objected to, such as the requirement to give information about how much time a home-schooled child is spending with both parents.
I will not reconsider all the debates that we have already had, but all those important decisions will potentially be in the scope of this Henry VIII power. I am keen to move on to the new clauses, so I will not go any further now, but I am sure that the Government will receive lots of probing questions on this point as the Bill moves to the other place.
Munira Wilson
I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, adding the Liberal Democrats’ support for putting equal protection into law for children. I do not understand why we would have a different level of protection for adults versus children. They are the most vulnerable children in our society. The Children’s Commissioner and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have been very clear that children should be protected. This is not seeking to interfere with parents in terms of how they discipline their children; it is about protecting our most vulnerable. The Children’s Commissioner has strongly called for this, particularly in the wake of the tragic case of Sara Sharif.
I really hope, when the Minister says that the Government will actively look at this during this Parliament, that that is the case. I suspect that there are Members in all parts of the House—I note that the new clause has cross-party support—who will continue to press her on this matter, because it is a basic issue of children’s rights and equal protection in law.
Catherine McKinnell
I will respond initially to the question raised by the hon. Member for—
Catherine McKinnell
On clause 56, it is always possible that necessary changes to legislation might be identified through a Bill’s passage. As I said, it is therefore prudent to have a failsafe should anything have been missed. This power is limited and narrow: it can be used only to make amendments that are consequential on the Bill’s provisions, which will be voted on, and it is in line with usual practice.
Regulations made under the power that amend or repeal any provision in primary legislation will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have carefully considered the power, and we believe that it is entirely justified in this case. It is needed to ensure that we are able to deal with the legislative consequences that may flow naturally from the main provisions and ensure that other legislation continues to work properly following the passage of the Bill.
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Neil O'Brien Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 90, in clause 48, page 108, line 24, at end insert—
“(3) Within six months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must issue statutory guidance on the decision-making process that must be followed when directions are given under section 96 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998.
(4) Guidance issued under subsection (3) must include details of—
(a) how actual or potential conflicts of interest arising from the role of local authorities in directing admissions to schools they maintain and those they do not are to be identified and managed; and
(b) how the best interests of children and young people are to be prioritised in all decision-making.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Clause 49 stand part.
New clause 45—Power to direct admission not to have regard to maintained or academy status—
“In section 96 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (direction to admit child to specified school), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) A direction under this section may not take into account whether a school is a maintained school or an academy.’”
Neil O’Brien
We heard some concern about clauses 48 and 49 in our evidence sessions. One of the issues is the potential conflict of interest between the local authority being both the regulator of the local system and, at the same time, a provider of some of the schools but not others. Sir Dan Moynihan said,
“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…Some of the schools we have taken on have failed because they have admitted large numbers of hard-to-place children…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.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 73, Q158.]
Luke Sparkes from Dixons also made roughly the same point.
Amendment 90 would require the Secretary of State to set out statutory guidance on
“how actual or potential conflicts of interest arising from the role of local authorities in directing admissions to schools they maintain and those they do not are to be identified and managed; and… how the best interests of children and young people are to be prioritised in all decision-making.”
New clause 45 would write into the legislation:
“A direction under this section may not take into account whether a school is a maintained school or an academy.”
Neither measure would fundamentally change the clause, but they require a solution to address that potential conflict of interest and ensure that things are fair, and are seen to be fair.
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
I rise to speak to amendment 90 and clauses 48 and 49. The clauses aim to strengthen local authorities’ existing powers to direct a school to admit a child and provide a more robust safety net for vulnerable children by ensuring that school places can be secured for them more quickly and efficiently when the usual admissions processes fall short.
Amendment 90 seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish statutory guidance as to how local authorities may exercise their direction powers impartially and in the best interests of children and young people. I note the concerns of the hon. Members that this new power may give rise to conflicts of interests in local authorities’ dealings with the schools that they maintain and those that they do not. I also agree that it is important that local authorities exercise their direction powers appropriately and in the best interests of children and young people.
I reassure hon. Members that legislation, as well as the school admissions code, already sets out mandatory requirements as to how local authorities may exercise their direction powers. They are intended for use only as a last resort and may only be used where admissions cannot be secured through the usual processes. To ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of a child, section 96 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 already requires local authorities to ensure that they choose a school that is within a reasonable distance of a child’s home and provides education suitable to their age, ability, aptitude and any specific educational needs that the child may have.
Furthermore, in considering which school to place the child, there are several other factors that local authorities are already required to take into consideration. For example, local authorities are unable to direct a school from which the child has been permanently excluded, or if it would mean that the school would have to take measures to avoid breaking the rules on infant class sizes. Furthermore, they are unable to direct a school’s sixth form if the child does not meet the relevant entry requirements.
In relation to a looked-after child, local authorities cannot direct a school where the child has been permanently excluded from that school previously or where the schools adjudicator deems the admission of the child would result in serious prejudice following an appeal by the school against the direction.
Furthermore, section 97 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 sets out further processes that a local authority must adhere to when considering exercising its direction powers. These include various requirements on consultation, including requiring the local authority to consult with the governing body of the school, the parent of the child and the child themselves, if they are over compulsory school age, before seeking to direct a school. Governing bodies are also provided the opportunity to appeal against any decision by the local authority to direct a child into their school.
Clause 48 enables the same requirements to apply equally in relation to a decision to direct an academy, including making it clear that academy trusts will have the right to appeal to the schools adjudicator against a local authority’s decision to direct their school. Those requirements will all be reflected in the school admissions code, which we intend to amend following Royal Assent. We also intend to work closely with the sector on any further changes that may be needed to fully implement the new powers.
Any change in the code will require a full public consultation and will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny before coming into effect, so I hope that the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich are reassured that we will take action to ensure that the statutory school admissions code will be amended accordingly and continue to set out clear guidance on how local authorities may exercise their direction powers following Royal Assent. We therefore do not consider the amendment necessary and kindly ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw it.
I turn to clauses 48 and 49. Local authorities have statutory duties to ensure that children in their area have access to a suitable education, but the levers are currently not available to them to achieve that, as they are not always effective. That can result in too many children, many of whom are vulnerable, being left without a school place for too long. Every day lost in a child’s education is one that they cannot get back. Powers of direction are intended to be used only as a last resort in those rare circumstances in which families are unable to secure a place through the usual admissions processes.
The purpose of clauses 48 and 49 is to create a more robust safety net for vulnerable children by giving local authorities the levers they need to secure school places for children more quickly and efficiently when the usual admissions processes fall short, ensuring that no child falls through the cracks. Clause 48 extends the current powers of local authorities to direct a maintained school to admit a child and to enable them to direct academies in the same way.
Although most children will secure a place through the usual admissions processes, vulnerable and hard-to-place children can sometimes struggle to do so. In circumstances in which those children have been refused entry to or have been permanently excluded from every suitable school within a reasonable distance, the local authority has the power to direct a maintained school for which they are not the admission authority to admit that child.
However, where a local authority wishes to place a child in an academy, it currently must request that the Secretary of State uses her direction powers under the academy’s funding agreement to compel the school to admit the child. That additional step can create further delay in getting a child into school. Enabling local authorities to direct academies themselves without needing to go through the process of requesting the Secretary of State to invoke her direction powers will ensure that school places for unplaced and vulnerable children can be secured quickly and efficiently. It does not make sense for local authorities to continue to need to ask the Secretary of State to make such direction for an academy.
Clause 49 further streamlines local authorities’ admission direction processes and makes them more transparent by enabling local authorities to direct a school where the fair access protocol fails to secure a school place for a child. The fair access protocol is a local mechanism for securing school places for children struggling to secure one through the usual admissions processes. The school admissions code requires all local authorities to have a fair access protocol in place that has been agreed with local schools and specifies the categories of children, including vulnerable and hard-to-place children, who are eligible to be considered for a school place under the fair access protocol.
Clause 49 will also enable future iterations of the admissions code to specify circumstances in which local authorities are able to direct the admission of a child where the fair access protocol has been exhausted and fails to secure a place for them. It will also allow the admissions code to set out a more streamlined directions process for children who have come out of care, so as to provide these often still vulnerable children greater parity with children currently in care. As mentioned, we intend to work closely with the sector in implementing the changes to the admissions code, which will include a full public consultation and require parliamentary approval.
I hope that I have reassured hon. Members that clauses 48 and 49 will provide a more robust safety net for vulnerable children by ensuring that places can be secured for them more quickly and efficiently when the usual admissions processes fall short, minimising time out of school and reducing the likelihood of children falling between the cracks. As I have mentioned, to ensure the powers are used appropriately, clause 48 will provide academies that disagree with a decision to direct admission with a formal route of appeal to the schools adjudicator, giving academies the same route of redress as is currently available only to maintained schools. That safeguard will ensure that local authorities use their powers appropriately and place children in suitable schools where they can thrive. I commend clauses 48 and 49 to the Committee.
New clause 45, which was tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich, aims to ensure that where a local authority is considering directing a school to admit a child, it does not take account of whether the school is a maintained school or an academy. The hon. Members appear to be concerned that a new power for local authorities to direct academy schools may give rise to potential conflicts of interest.
As I have mentioned, the power is intended for use only as a last resort, and may be used only where admissions cannot be secured through the usual processes. Under public law principles, local authorities are already prevented from taking irrelevant matters into consideration when taking decisions, and in most circumstances, whether a school is an academy is not likely to be a relevant factor in determining whether to direct a school to admit a child. Furthermore, as I set out earlier, the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the school admissions code already set out several requirements as to how local authorities may exercise their direction powers. Those include relevant factors that they must take into consideration when deciding to direct a school, as well as the processes they must follow when making a direction.
Local authorities can already request that the Secretary of State direct a pupil into an academy on their behalf, and we know from experience that local authorities use this route only where they consider that it is in the best interests of the pupil, and after careful thought and consideration about the impact on the school. However, the new right for an academy trust to appeal to the independent schools adjudicator where they disagree with a direction for them to admit a child will provide independent oversight of local authorities’ decisions to direct.
I hope that the hon. Members will be reassured that appropriate checks and balances will be in place to mitigate any risk of the misuse of the power by local authorities, and kindly ask that the amendment be withdrawn.
Neil O’Brien
I think Sam Freedman is a fella rather than a lady. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 50
Functions of adjudicator in relation to admission numbers
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move amendment 84, in clause 50, page 110, line 4, at end insert—
“(4A) Where making a decision the adjudicator must take into account—
(a) the performance of the school; and
(b) whether the school is oversubscribed.”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 83, in clause 50, page 110, leave out lines 8 to 13.
Clause stand part.
New clause 46—High performing schools to be allowed to expand PAN—
“In section 88D of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (determination of admission numbers), after subsection (1) insert—
‘(1A) Where a school—
(a) being a primary school, has over 60% of its pupils meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths combined in the Key Stage 2 national curriculum assessments,
(b) being a secondary school, is performing above +0.5 on Progress 8,
wishes to increase its published admissions number, the admission authority must reflect that wish in its determination.’”
New Clause 47—Limits on objections to changes to PAN—
“In section 88H of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (reference of objections to adjudicator), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) No objection may be referred to the adjudicator which—
(a) objects to an increase in a school’s published admissions number; or
(b) objects to a school’s published admissions number remaining at the same level.’”
Neil O’Brien
Clause 50 is one of the elements of the Bill that we are most concerned about. The Government’s impact assessment says:
“Demographic changes mean there is an increase in the number of surplus places in primary schools...We want the local authority to have more influence over the PANs for schools in their area”.
For the benefit of people following the sitting, PAN is the published admission number—the number of pupils a school takes on each year.
The impact assessment continues:
“This would include scenarios where...a school’s PAN is set at a level which creates viability issues for another local school”.
In my mind, that line creates many questions. In a city like London, there are roughly 2,700 or 2,800 state schools, and cross-authority moves are very common. If I have an excellent and oversubscribed school, and someone else’s requires improvement and is struggling to attract pupils, how on earth are they to know that it is my school that is creating viability issues for their school, rather than one of the other hundreds of schools nearby? Indeed, how are we to know that the viability issues are not entirely to do with the struggling school, and how is the schools adjudicator to make such decisions? In reverse, how are the pupils from a thriving school to be shared out fairly if there are multiple struggling schools in the area? As soon as we start to think about it, these are massive questions.
The impact assessment makes it clear that this measure is a huge departure from the path we have been on since the reforms of the late 1980s, which gave good schools the ability to expand without the local authority blocking them. The impact assessment says:
“The Adjudicator will also have the ability to set the PAN for the subsequent year”
and
“some schools may find that their PAN is not set for them as they would wish. They may feel that they are able to take more pupils and thus receive greater funding. It could also limit the ability of popular schools to grow.”
Those are the Government’s words, not mine. They continue:
“If a school is required to lower their PAN, some pupils who would have otherwise been admitted will be unable to attend the school. This will negatively impact on parental preference, especially if the school was the parent’s first choice.”
The Confederation of School Trusts has pointed out that the impact assessment does not account for the potential risks of reducing PANs for popular and successful schools. Our amendments address exactly that point. Once again, rather than the normal split between the regulator and the provider, the local authorities will be both. Politicians in some local authorities—this is not a secret—have never much liked the academy programme or school freedom. It would be very tempting for them to try to push down numbers in academies, particularly to protect the schools that they run even if they are not the best ones or the ones that parents want. For all those reasons, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the former Labour leader, was positive about the clause on Second Reading. However, for the reasons that he is positive about it I am rather nervous about it.
Amendment 84 would write into the Bill:
“Where making a decision the adjudicator must take into account—
(a) the performance of the school; and
(b) whether the school is oversubscribed.”
It would make it clear that we need to deal with the issues now, at this point of democratic decision and transparency, and write those principles into law rather than leave it to Ministers and regulations, meaning that the handling of highly significant issues could easily later shift, with little scrutiny, under a different Secretary of State.
New clause 47 would stop objections to stable or growing PANs, and new clause 46 would at least exempt high performing schools and allow them to still expand. A striking thing about the clause is that it is not just allowing appeals against schools expanding for the first time—a massive move away from the principles of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998—but even allowing appeals against schools just staying the same and carrying on doing what they are doing. That can now be challenged, and the only reason to do that is to share out the pupils in order to help other schools be more viable.
Will the powers be used? Yes, absolutely they will, because the context, of course, is the forecast decline in pupil numbers. Indeed, the impact assessment gives that as one of the rationales in London and other urban areas. The declines are forecast to be quite steep. Often local forecasts turn out to be wrong, but in some London boroughs the forecast is for more than one in 10 or even one in eight pupils to disappear over the next four years. In that context, the temptation to prop up some schools by pressing for reductions in others will be very strong, particularly for local authorities that do not like school choice much, but even in others, too.
At present there is nothing in the Bill to reassure us or school leaders that this will be done fairly between local authority and non-local authority schools, or fairly reflecting how well schools are performing or fairly reflecting how popular they are. There is nothing but the suggestion of future guidance, which the House will not be able to amend and which can shift with the views of whoever is Secretary of State at the time. There is some deep history here. It was Mrs Thatcher who announced the reforms that the Government are starting to undo today. It was initially called the local management of schools. When Mrs Thatcher announced it, she said,
“We will allow popular schools to take in as many children as space will permit. And this will stop local authorities from putting artificially low limits on entry to good schools. And second, we will give parents and governors the right to take their children’s school out of the hands of the local authority and into the hands of their own governing body. This will create a new kind of school funded by the State, alongside the present State schools and the independent private schools. They will bring a better education to many children because the school will be in the hands of those who care most for it and for its future.”
Did those reforms work? Well, the former Education Minister, Lord Adonis, who wrote about the creation of the school freedom, concluded:
“Local Management of Schools was an unalloyed and almost immediate success…school budgets under LMS were based largely on pupil numbers, so parental choice came to matter as never before.”
Several times during our debates I have heard Labour Members say that they believe in “standards, not structures”. We heard it in the last sitting and I have heard it from Ministers. But let me quote from another great socialist thinker, former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who says in his memoirs,
“We had come to power in 1997 saying it was ‘standards not structures’ that mattered. We said this in respect of education, but it applied equally to health and other public services. Unfortunately, as I began to realise, when experience shaped our thinking, it was bunkum as a piece of policy. The whole point is that structures beget standards. How a service is configured affects outcomes.”
This clause strikes at one of the most foundational school reforms of the last 40 years. It strikes at school choice by making the size of schools not a matter for parents in choosing and voting with their feet, but instead for local councillors and the schools adjudicator. You strike at parental choice and you strike at one of the most powerful engines for school improvement.
Although I understand what Ministers are trying to do, this is currently being done in the Bill without any of the basic safeguards we would expect on how they will make those decisions. I understand what Ministers are trying to do, but I think this is one of the worst clauses in the Bill, and I really hope that Ministers will rethink it.
Catherine McKinnell
Clause 50 covers the ability of the schools adjudicator to set the published admissions number of a school where the adjudicator has upheld an objection to it. This provides an important backstop to ensure that all children are able to access a place at a school where they can achieve and thrive.
Amendments 84 and 83 relate to the matters the adjudicator must take into account when deciding on a school’s published admissions number and the means by which those requirements are placed upon her. I will discuss each of these matters in turn, but there are clearly important connections between the two.
Amendment 84 would requires the adjudicator to take into account the school’s performance and whether it is oversubscribed when deciding on what the school’s published admissions number should be following an upheld objection. School performance and parental demand are clearly important factors that adjudicators should consider when determining objections to published admission numbers. Indeed, previous adjudicator determinations on schools reducing published admission numbers show that the adjudicator regularly takes these matters into consideration where they are relevant to a case.
However, specifying that the adjudicator must only take account of these factors and no other factors could hinder effective decision making and damage the interests of schools and communities. Although the expansion of good schools is to be celebrated, we know that in some areas schools are unilaterally increasing their admission numbers beyond what is needed, damaging the quality of education that children receive at nearby schools by making it harder for school leaders to plan the best education for their children.
Therefore, it is right that the adjudicator’s decisions about the level at which to set the admission number following an upheld objection should also consider the wider impact on the community. For example, this could include potential impacts on parental choice if the quality of education that children receive at other schools nearby is affected.
Furthermore, there are other factors that it may be important for the adjudicator to consider or that provide necessary safeguards for the school that is the subject of the objection, such as statutory financial or capacity requirements. For example, primary schools are required to comply with the statutory infant class-size limit and we would want the adjudicator to ensure that any published admission number they set enables the school to comply with this important duty.
Neil O'Brien
The Minister talks about schools expanding “beyond what is needed”. How will she determine whether a school’s expansion is “beyond what is needed”? Is it the presence of any “surplus” school places in that local authority area?
Catherine McKinnell
As I have set out, these are matters for the school adjudicator to determine on when objections have been raised with them. Schools adjudicators are independent, which is an important factor in this process. They have significant experience of considering objection cases and they are ideally placed to take objective, transparent and impartial decisions.
Neil O'Brien
It was the Minister herself who said “we know” that some schools had expanded “beyond what was needed”’; she did not say that an admissions adjudicator had determined that. In response to my challenge, she referred to the admissions adjudicator, but it was she herself who said “we know” that some schools had expanded beyond the point that was “needed”. How does she know that? On what basis does she say that?
Catherine McKinnell
Obviously, the purpose of the clause is to ensure that those decisions are made independently by the schools adjudicator. I think the hon. Gentleman should acknowledge that he is objecting to an independent adjudication on these matters, which is entirely the purpose of this legislative provision.
Catherine McKinnell
No, that is not what I said. I was responding to the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston.
These measures are being introduced to support local authorities with effective place planning. In answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston about how we know that this challenge needs action, a 2022 report commissioned by the Department for Education under the previous Government reported that
“unilateral decisions about PANs and admissions…was identified by 89% of LAs”
as a barrier to fulfilling their responsibilities for mainstream school place planning. Some 13% of local authorities reported that
“this occurred regularly, 41% occasionally, and 34% rarely”.
Local authorities were more likely to report that this barrier was more common when working with academies. Those are the findings of the Department’s own report, which was commissioned under the last Government.
To be clear, the measure is not about removing any and all surplus places from the school system, including where it is useful, for example, in ensuring parental choice and flexibility in the system to accommodate future demand for school places. This is about ensuring that the places on offer in an area adequately reflect the needs of that local community. Where there is large surplus capacity, that can have a detrimental impact on good schools. It could result in significant upheaval for children and damage local parental choice. This is about supporting local authorities to ensure that they have the right amount of school places in their local area. There is already a statutory obligation on that. This measure will support local authorities to achieve that.
Neil O'Brien
The Minister is talking about within local communities and within local authorities and so on. I raised the issue of how this is supposed to work in London. The Government talked about using this power where
“a school’s PAN is set at a level which creates viability issues for another local school”.
Local is not defined. How is the schools adjudicator to work out whether it is one school that is creating
“viability issues for another local school”
in a setting like London, where there are many schools nearby, or whether some of the viability issues are to do with the school’s own performance, perhaps, because it is not a very good school? How on earth is one to identify fairly in a city like this, with vast flows between boroughs, where the problem is coming from for a “failing” school?
Catherine McKinnell
I recognise the challenge of falling rolls in some London boroughs, which the hon. Member rightly identifies. It just goes to make the case even more strongly: partners have to work collaboratively to ensure that we manage demographic changes properly and that children are at the heart of all decisions.
The measures in the Bill will give local authorities more levers to help manage surplus capacity. For example, the Bill will ensure that if the schools adjudicator upholds an objection that the published admission number of a school is too high to support the community need, the adjudicator will then be able to set the published admission number for the school. Schools and local authorities will be under new duties to co-operate on school admissions and place planning as part of measures to the Bill already debated and passed.
Neil O'Brien
What share of “surplus places” is too high in the eyes of the Minister? Will she set out in guidance what “too high” looks like? What is her view on too high—is it 1%, 2% or 3% surplus places?
Catherine McKinnell
The guidance will set out how local authorities will determine their published admission number. It will also support local authorities with effective place planning, which will be set out in the admissions code. The new delegated powers will set out to adjudicators what they should consider when setting published admission numbers within that context.
I can reassure the hon. Member that adjudicators are experienced at considering these types of issues as part of their existing role. They already do this. They consider both objections to published admission number reductions and requests by maintained schools to vary their published admission number downwards in light of major changes in circumstances. They have an in-depth knowledge of admissions law and play an integral role in ensuring that school admissions are fair and lawful. Many have wide experience of the education system at a very senior level. The hon. Member should not be so concerned that these matters cannot be adjudicated, which seems to be what he is suggesting.
Neil O'Brien
I am not suggesting that they cannot be adjudicated. I am pointing out to the Minister that for them to be adjudicated in a completely new way will mean something very different will happen to our education system. At the moment, the adjudicator can be brought in if a school dramatically wants to cut its numbers. That is fair enough. We need to make sure that all pupils have a place to go to school. But this is something completely new. There is an objection not just to expanding, which is an attack on the principle of school choice, but to schools wanting to keep their published admission number the same.
This is a completely revolutionary change. The adjudicator is not dealing with these kinds of things at the moment for academies, so it is a huge change and a move away from the principles that have allowed good schools to expand and the voices of those who say, “There are too many surplus places; you can go to a worse school and not to your first-choice school” to be squashed by the process of school choice and competition.
Catherine McKinnell
The hon. Gentleman has made his concerns known. I do not think he is making any new assertions. It might be helpful if I continue setting out why we do not accept the proposed amendments.
Catherine McKinnell
Local authorities make decisions about place planning within their local area. There will be a duty on all schools within a local area to co-operate with the local authority on place planning and admissions. The clause and the Bill extend to academies the ability to object to the school adjudicator, which gives them the ability to present their case where there is a challenge. Clause 50, which I will come to shortly, includes a delegated power that enables the Government to make regulations that set out factors that the adjudicator must consider when setting the published admission number of the school after it has upheld an objection.
Neil O’Brien
To be clear, is it the case that under the clause the schools adjudicator will have the power to set the published admission number to zero—in other words, to close a school?
Catherine McKinnell
Where the adjudicator upholds an objection to the published admission number, I cannot foresee a circumstance where that might be the case—
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes powerful and important points relating to the challenges she has experienced in her local area. That is why the changes are necessary to ensure we have a fair system.
The usual approach from Opposition Members is to act as though this is a new thing that has just been invented. This is not a new role for adjudicators. They already consider these issues, not just in proposals to reduce admission numbers—
Catherine McKinnell
Can I finish making one point? Adjudicators do that when schools seek to vary their admission arrangements once they have been determined. I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s concern about the theoretical prospect—
Catherine McKinnell
It is a hypothetical prospect of a published admission number being set at zero. That will be dealt with as part of regulations and we will set out more detail in those, but we will address that.
Catherine McKinnell
I can get back to the actual substantive response to the amendment, or we can carry on with this debate in the meantime.
Neil O’Brien
This is a substantive point. I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; we are doing the proper business of a Committee here. Let us be clear: the whole point of the clause is to address situations, such as those in London, where a local authority has one in eight of its primary school pupils disappearing within four years, and schools closures will be a part of that. The Minister said that this is not new, but it absolutely is. At the moment, a primary school cannot have its PAN challenged by the local authority if it just wants to keep it the same. In the future, under this clause, the local authority can say, “We want to close this school. We are going to challenge your decision to keep your PAN the same. We think you should shut.” Under this clause, the schools adjudicator will have the power to set its PAN to zero.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister says that the Secretary of State can shut schools in other ways. The schools authority, under this law, will have the power to set a PAN to zero. I did not hear the Minister say that, according to guidance, that should not happen. Will she say that now?
Catherine McKinnell
To deal with the issues that the hon. Gentleman raises, he is wrong that this is a new power.
Catherine McKinnell
If the hon. Gentleman will let me a finish a sentence, he will see. The hon. Gentleman is repeatedly putting words in my mouth by taking snippets of sentences without listening to them entirely. He is concerned that this is intended to address simply matters that might affect London.
Catherine McKinnell
That is the point I am making. These challenges affect local authorities right up and down the country. The research the previous Government undertook into this matter demonstrated that local authorities, which have a statutory obligation to provide suitable school places for all the children in their local area, face widespread challenges in meeting that obligation because of the challenges in the current system, which the clauses seek to address. Yes, this is a new statutory duty, which is why we are legislating, but it is not a new role for adjudicators. That is the point that I have made a number of times. I am not saying this is not a change, as we are legislating to change things, but it is not a new role for adjudicators. They are well experienced in managing many of these considerations.
The fundamental point is that school closures need to be managed very carefully through significant change or prescribed alteration processes. As I am sure the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston is aware, academies are maintained through contractual arrangements. The parties to the funding agreements are the Secretary of State and the relevant academy trust, and there are no third-party rights given to a local authority under that funding agreement. Any decision relating to the termination of a funding agreement sits with the Secretary of State.
The purpose of the Bill is to put a new requirement on schools, academy trusts and local authorities to co-operate on place planning and admission matters. We expect them to work together to manage the supply of school places and, where necessary, that may include making plans to close a maintained school or academy, if that is the right decision for a particular area.
Catherine McKinnell
I cannot envisage a scenario where an adjudicator would adjudicate on the opening of a new school. If it adjudicates on the published admission numbers of existing schools, I cannot foresee a scenario where there would be an appeal to the adjudicator for a school that does not exist.
Neil O’Brien
If I can put it in my words, there is nothing in the Bill to stop the local authority applying to the adjudicator to stop the first year PAN of a new school. If I say, “I want to open my new school and the PAN is going to be X,” the local authority could say, “No, I think it should be half of X.” There is nothing to stop that, even in the first year. It could even be that the local authority says, “No, the first year number should be zero.” There is nothing in the Bill to stop that happening, so, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire says, it does apply to new schools.
Catherine McKinnell
I apologise, but I still do not see the relevance to how an adjudicator could open a new school. I am more than happy to write to the hon. Gentleman after I have considered the issue further.
Catherine McKinnell
I will have to take away that question, and I am happy to write to the right hon. Gentleman with a response. Obviously, the adjudicator currently has a role in certain cases—for example, where a local authority is involved in the foundation of a school. I will look at the specific example that he raises, and I am happy to write to him with a response.
Neil O’Brien
I am extremely grateful to the Minister for her offer to write on this point. To avoid disturbing her flow any further, can I ask her to explain something? If a school is not happy with the decision of the adjudicator on its PAN, what will the appeal process look like for that school?
Catherine McKinnell
Adjudicators’ decisions are legally binding and publicly available. Ultimately, adjudicators are appointed by the Secretary of State, who is accountable for those decisions. That responds to the question from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire about democratic accountability.
I presume that the outcome in the case that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston raises would be a legal challenge to the decision. Obviously, he and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire are testing the possible outcomes of this measure to the very limit, which comes across as rather extreme in most cases. The purpose of the clause is to simplify, clarify and make more transparent the levers that local authorities will have to set planning numbers in their area, ideally to reduce the number of challenges and issues that arise.
Catherine McKinnell
I appreciate that the hon. Lady refers to a real potential scenario, although I would certainly put it in the hypothetical category at this stage. The Office of the Schools Adjudicator can only take a decision where there has been an objection. That is the point I was making. It cannot decide whether to open a school; it can take a decision only where an objection is made specifically to the adjudicator on the basis of the proposed published admission number.
Subject to the passing of this Bill, new school proposals put forward by the local authority outside the invitation process—I do not believe we have got to those clauses yet; we are coming to a whole additional debate on that—will be decided by the schools adjudicator, to avoid any conflict of interest and to ensure that any objections to the proposals are considered fairly. Obviously, it will have the legal framework within which to operate in order to make those decisions. That is an established part of the current system.
For other possible scenarios, we will provide guidance on the factors that we expect decision makers to take into account in the variety of decisions that may be required. That will be based on the existing guidance for opening new schools and will include the vision for the school, whether it is deliverable and affordable, the quality of the education, the curriculum and the staffing plans. Those are all the factors taken into account when determining the opening of a new school.
However, I appreciate the challenge on published admission numbers, in particular, being a factor to be taken into consideration. As I said, I will confirm in more detail how that might work in practice, but the fundamental point is that it will be set out in guidance. If there is a challenge to a decision by an adjudicator, that will be by way of judicial review.
Moving on, new clause 46, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, seeks to ensure that where high-performing schools, as defined in his new clause, wish to increase their published admission number, their admission authority must reflect that in the determined admission arrangements. I can reassure him that, as I have said already, this Government support good schools expanding where that is right for the local community. We understand the importance of admission authorities being able to set their own admission arrangements, including their published admission number.
Admission authorities will consider a variety of factors in arriving at the most appropriate number for their schools and must consult where they want to make changes, taking the feedback into account before they make their final decision. Where, for example, a multi-academy trust or local authority is setting the PAN for an individual school for which it is the admission authority, it is right that it takes into account the views of that school, but that can be done by informal engagement or by a formal consultation process if necessary.
The school admissions code requires governing bodies to be consulted on changes to a school’s admission arrangements where they are not the admission authority. However, that does not mean that those views should override any relevant factors, such as budgeting or staffing, that a trust, governing body or local authority, as the school’s admission authority, may need to take into consideration as part of its final decision.
If the school feels that it has not been heard and the admission authority has reduced the published admission number where the school feels it should be able to offer more places, it would be open to the school itself, like any other body or person, to object to the adjudicator for an independent resolution. We expect most issues to be resolved locally, through engagement and collaboration, and, given the existing, effective routes for schools to influence the published admission number set for them by the local authority, we do not think the new clause is necessary. For the reasons I have outlined, I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press it.
Finally, I turn to new clause 47, tabled by the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, which would prevent objections from being made against an admission authority where it proposes to increase its PAN or keep it the same as the previous year. Through clause 50 we want to ensure that the number of places on offer in an area adequately reflects the needs of the local community. As the hon. Member is aware, at present, any body or person can object to the adjudicator about a school’s determined admission arrangements, including the school’s PAN. However, current regulations have the same effect as his new clause of preventing objections where a PAN is increased or retained at the same level as the previous year. We intend to amend those regulations to allow the local authority to object to the adjudicator where a PAN has been increased or has stayed the same as in the previous year. This is intended to facilitate the measures set out in clause 50 to provide a more effective route for local authorities to object to the independent adjudicator about a school’s PAN.
The current circumstances in which the system operates are complex. In some areas there is a surplus of places, whereas in others, some admissions authorities are not offering sufficient places to ensure that all children can access a local school That means that both PAN increases and decreases can impact on the local school system in different ways, and that even where a school’s PAN has not changed from previous years, changing demographics can mean that that number no longer meets the needs of the local area. However, local authorities often lack the levers to deliver on their duty to ensure that there are sufficient school places, or to manage the school estate effectively. So, if the PAN does not work in the interests of the local community, the local authority should be able to object to the adjudicator, regardless of whether the school intends to increase, decrease or keep the same PAN, and that will ensure fairness and the most appropriate decision on the allocation of places.
Our proposed changes reflect local authorities’ important role in ensuring that there are sufficient places, and that the number of places offered in an area meets the needs of the community. That is why we are proposing a limited change to the regulations to lift this restriction only for local authorities, not for all bodies or people. The route of objection will be a last resort for local authorities. We expect local authorities and schools to work together to set PANs that are appropriate, and we will update the school admissions code to support that.
As the House has previously confirmed in passing the relevant regulations, the flexibility of the current regulations has worked well, enabling the Government of the day to be responsive to changing circumstances in the interests of parents and communities. New clause 47 would prevent the Government from exercising the flexibility provided for by the existing legislative framework, leaving local authorities with limited ability to act in the interests of the local community and seek an independent decision on the PAN of a school where they consider it does not meet the community’s needs. The changes that the Government propose to make to the regulations will of course be subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
In the light of those arguments, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw his amendment, and I commend clause 50 to the Committee.
Neil O’Brien
I pay tribute to the Minister for the reasonable way in which we have conducted this important debate. We have a huge disagreement with clause 50, which we think is a major mistake. We also have concerns about the process. We believe that it is better for this House to debate these big issues about what fairness is and looks like, and for that to be dealt with through the transparency of primary legislation, rather than its being left to the Secretary of State at any given moment to pass these things in regulations. I am therefore keen to press amendment 84 and new clause 46 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Tenth sitting)
Neil O'Brien ExcerptsTuesday 4th February 2025
(1 year, 1 month ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 2024-26 View all Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 February 2025 - (4 Feb 2025)
The Minister for School Standards (Catherine McKinnell)
We move on to new clause 53, tabled by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. Removing the entitlement to a high-quality core curriculum for all children by allowing schools, whether they are maintained or academies, to deviate from the national curriculum, could create an unequal system where the content of a child’s core education varies widely.
Let us be clear that what we are talking about: a requirement to teach the national curriculum does not create a ceiling; it does not force schools to teach in a particular way or prevent them from adapting or innovating, and it does not stop them adding extra content that works for their pupils. It simply says that, as a nation, this is the core knowledge and skills that we expect schools to teach their pupils, whatever their background. New clause 53 would allow a school to decide not to teach its pupils some important core content that all other children are being taught. We do not think that parents want their children’s school to be able to do that. On that basis, I ask the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.
The hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich also tabled new clause 54. The national curriculum is the cornerstone of the education system. We are reforming it and extending it to cover academies to ensure that every child, regardless of their background or the school they attend, receives the best possible core education. I have set out already why allowing schools to opt out of the national curriculum creates a risk of an unequal system, where not all children can benefit from a strong foundation of the reformed curriculum and what it will provide, so I will focus on the additional elements in the new clause, particularly the Ofsted certifications.
There are unanswered questions about how this provision would work in practice. We have moved from single headline judgments in Ofsted inspections, but the new clause seeks to create a single judgment that would have a material impact on a school for the next decade. The fact that a school offered a broad and balanced curriculum, as all schools must, at some point in the previous 10 years does not mean that it currently does or will do in the future if it chooses not to follow the national curriculum. If, subsequently, Ofsted found the school’s curriculum was not up to scratch, the school would have the disruption and cost of suddenly having to teach the national curriculum again. Allowing more schools to deviate from the national curriculum just as we are reforming it creates a risk that some pupils will not be taught the core knowledge and skills that every young person deserves to be taught. I again invite the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.
New clause 65 was tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Ensuring that schools can adapt their teaching to unique contexts and circumstances is clearly important, but the current framework already provides the flexibility that schools need and value. The national curriculum subject programmes of study already give schools the flexibility to tailor the content and delivery of the curriculum to meet the needs of their pupils and to take account of new developments, societal changes or topical issues. The reformed national curriculum will help to deliver the Government’s commitment to high and rising standards, supporting the innovation and professionalism of teachers while ensuring greater attention to breadth and flexibility. The proposed core framework would add significant extra complexity to the national curriculum, which already has core and foundation subjects, and would risk being confusing for schools. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
New clause 54 would allow academies to continue to exercise freedom in the matter of their curriculum where Ofsted is satisfied that the curriculum is broad and balanced. New clause 53 would allow ongoing curriculum freedom in academies where it is needed in the interests of improving standards. New clause 44 would extend academy freedoms to local authority maintained schools, allowing them to offer a curriculum that is different from the national curriculum, as long as it is broad and balanced and certified by Ofsted.
The imposition on all schools of the—currently being rewritten—national curriculum was raised in our evidence session right at the start of this Bill Committee. As Nigel Genders, the chief education officer of the Church of England noted:
“The complexity is that this legislation is happening at the same time as the curriculum and assessment review, so our schools are being asked to sign up to a general curriculum for everybody without knowing what that curriculum is likely to be.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 64.]
There is a parallel here in that we are also being asked to sign up to sweeping reforms to the academies order at the same time as the Government are changing the accountability framework, as the hon. Member for Twickenham correctly pointed out in the Chamber yesterday. Several school leaders gave us good examples showing why it is a mistake to take away academy freedoms to vary from the national curriculum. As Sir Dan Moynihan, the leader of the incredibly successful Harris Federation, explained to us:
“We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in London, and we have found youngsters in the lower years of secondary schools unable to read and write. We varied the curriculum in the short term and narrowed the number of subjects in key stage 3 in order to maximise the amount of time given for literacy and numeracy, because the children were not able to access the other subjects. Of course, that is subject to Ofsted. Ofsted comes in, inspects and sees whether what you are doing is reasonable.
“That flexibility has allowed us to widen the curriculum out again later and take those schools on to ‘outstanding’ status. We are subject to Ofsted scrutiny. It is not clear to me why we would need to follow the full national curriculum. What advantage does that give? When we have to provide all the nationally-recognised qualifications—GCSEs, A-levels, SATs—and we are subject to external regulation by Ofsted, why take away the flexibility to do what is needed locally?” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 72.]
Luke Sparkes, from the also very successful Dixons Academies Trust, argued that:
“we…need the ability to enact the curriculum in a responsive and flexible way at a local level. I can see the desire to get that consistency, but there needs to be a consistency without stifling innovation.” ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 79.]
Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Primary Headteachers’ Association told us:
“Anything that says, ‘Well, we are going to go slightly more with a one-size-fits-all model’—bearing in mind, too, that we do not know what that looks like, because this national curriculum has not even been written yet—is a worry. That is what I mean. If we suddenly all have to comply with something that is more uniform and have to check—‘Oh no, we cannot do that’, ‘Yes, we can do that’, ‘No, we can’t do that’, ‘Yes, we can do that’—it will impede our ability to be agile”. ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 83.]
The Minister talked about Chesterton’s fence and gave us some lessons in Conservative history and philosophy, but I point her to the same argument: this is an example of Chesterton’s fence. These freedoms and flexibilities are there for a reason. They are there to defend us against the inflexibility of not being able to do what Sir Dan Moynihan needs to do to turn around failing schools. It is no good us saying, “Here is the perfect curriculum. Let’s go and study this incredibly advanced subject” if the kids cannot read or add up. This is a very powerful point that school leaders are making to us, one which I hope Ministers will take on board.
Since the Minister referred to a bit of Conversative history and Ken Baker’s creation of the national curriculum in the 1980s, she will of course be aware that there was a huge debate about it and a lot of concern, particularly from Mrs Thatcher, about what many described as the “nationalised curriculum”. There was concern that it would get out of hand, become too prescriptive, too bureaucratic and too burdensome. That debate will always be there, and the safety valve we have at the moment is that never since its instigation have all schools had to follow the national curriculum. Even though academies did not exist then, city technology colleges did and they did not have the follow the national curriculum. This is the first time in our whole history that every single school will have to follow it.
In relation to previous clauses, I have spoken about getting away from the dead hand of compliance culture and moving toward an achievement and innovation culture—a culture of freedom—in our schools. Pupils at Michaela Community School made the greatest progress in the whole country three years in a row—an incredible achievement—and they did that by having an incredibly distinctive and knowledge-intensive curriculum that was completely their own. Its head, Katharine Birbalsingh, has argued in an open letter to the Secretary of State:
“Clearly there needs to be a broad academic core for all children. But a rigid national curriculum that dictates adherence to a robotic, turgid and monotonous programme of learning that prevents headteachers from giving their children a bespoke offer tailored to the needs of their pupils, is quite frankly, horrifying. Anyone in teaching who has an entrepreneurial spirit, who enjoys thinking creatively about how best to address the needs of their pupils, will be driven out of the profession. Not to mention how standards will drop! High standards depend in part on the dynamism of teachers. Why would you want to kill our creativity?
Then there is the cost. Your curriculum changes will cost schools time and money. Do you have any idea of the work required from teachers and school leaders to change their curriculum? You will force heads to divert precious resources from helping struggling families to fulfil a bureaucratic whim coming from Whitehall. Why are you changing things? What is the problem you are trying to solve?”
That is a good question; perhaps the Minister can tell us the answer.
Nor is it just school leaders who are raising concerns about this clause. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum was “of particular concern” to her. Our three new clauses reflect what school leaders have told us. We think the clause is fundamentally a bad idea, but we are trying to find a compromise.
New clause 53 responds to Sir Dan Moynihan’s point that freedom to vary from the national curriculum can be really important in turnaround situations: we cannot succeed in other things if children are unable first to read and write. New clause 54 allows freedom where schools are delivering a broad and balanced curriculum. That worries Ministers, although we heard from the head of Ofsted the other day that schools are delivering a broad and balanced curriculum, so once again it is not clear what problem Ministers are trying to solve. We do not learn the answer from the impact assessment either. If this is just about ensuring that all schools have the same freedoms, new clause 54 would give local authority schools the same freedoms as academies, but that is not what the Government are proposing.
I hope the Minister will tell us at some point what problem she is trying to solve. Where is the evidence of abuse? There is none in the impact assessment, and Ministers have not produced any at any point so far in the process. The Government’s impact assessment says that schools
“may need to hire additional or specialist teachers for any subjects not currently delivered or underrepresented in existing curricula”,
that they may need to make adjustments in their facilities, resources and materials to meet the national curriculum standards, and that they may need “additional or specialised training” to deliver the new national curriculum. It says:
“some academies may be particularly affected if their current curriculum differs significantly from the new national curriculum”.
Unfortunately, the impact assessment does not put any numbers on the impact. Will the Minister commit clearly and unambiguously to meet the costs, including for facilities, for any schools that have to incur costs as a result of this measure?
The Minister talked about Jim Callaghan’s famous phrase, his reference to a “secret garden”. We will come on to that on a later new clause, when we will advance the case against secret lessons in relationships, health and sex education. I hope the Minister will be as good as her word; I hope she is against the secret garden in that domain. On these new clauses, we hope the Minister will listen to the voices of school leaders, her own colleagues and people who are concerned about clause 41, and tell us what the problem is that the Government are trying to solve. The Government clearly like the idea of everything being the same—they like imposing the same thing on every school in the country—but what is the problem? Where is the evidence that this needs to happen? Why are Ministers not listening to serious school leaders who have turned around a lot of schools, who say that they need this freedom to turn around schools that are currently failing kids? Why do Ministers think they know better than school leaders who have already succeeded in turning around failing schools?
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. In the light of the discussion that we had before lunch, I want to put on the record that those who are questioning these measures—certainly on the Liberal Democrat Benches—are not trying to attack standards. We recognise that, like qualified teachers, the national curriculum is a very good thing for our children. It is important that children and young people have a common core. None the less, I come back to the question that I posed earlier and the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston just posed again: what is the problem that Ministers are trying to fix with clause 41?
In oral evidence, His Majesty’s chief inspector of schools, Sir Martyn Oliver, told us that there is very little evidence that academy schools are not teaching a broad and balanced curriculum. He said:
“the education inspection framework that we currently use significantly reduced the deviation of academies because it set out the need to carry out a broad and balanced curriculum…I would always want to give headteachers the flexibility to do what is right for their children”. ––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 50, Q113.]
Given the Ofsted framework, given that our primary schools are preparing children to sit their standard assessment tests, and given that secondary schools are preparing pupils for a range of public examinations, not least GCSEs, all of which have common syllabuses, the reality on the ground is that most schools do not deviate very much from the national curriculum.
On the other hand, during the oral evidence sessions we heard that school leaders have sometimes used the freedom to deviate where children have fallen behind as a result of disadvantage, trauma, the covid pandemic or other reasons, to ensure they reach the required level to be able to engage in that broad and balanced curriculum. I ask Ministers: if an 11-year-old is struggling to read and write, does it make sense to expect them to access the full history, geography and modern languages curriculum immediately at the start of year 7? As much as I would want them to—I say this as a languages graduate who bemoans the death of modern languages in our schools—we cannot expect them to do those things until they have a basic standard of written English.
The Children’s Commissioner spoke powerfully of her own experience. She had to turn a school around by ditching the wider curriculum to get the children up to the required standard before opening up the curriculum.
Catherine McKinnell
Where to start? I guess I should start by responding to the fundamental question that I think hon. Members are asking: what problem are we trying to solve? Fundamentally, Opposition Members—I do not refer to all of them—do not seem to have a very realistic perspective on the challenges that are very present in the education system. They cite singular examples of schools that are doing a fantastic job and that absolutely should be celebrated, but that is not reflective of the entire system.
Through this Bill and the other reforms we are looking to introduce—I think Opposition Members fundamentally agree with them, but do not wish to say so—we are trying to create a core offer for every child in this country. No matter what type of school they go to, what their background is and where they come from, children will be guaranteed a core, quality educational offer, with qualified teachers and a national curriculum core framework that gives them the basis, yes, of knowledge, but also skills and development as an individual that set them up for life.
It is an absolute myth that maintained schools are unable to innovate while following the national curriculum. The reformed national curriculum will support innovation and professionalism in teachers, and maintain the flexibility that we know is really important if schools are to meet the needs of their children. It is absolutely right that schools can, for example, choose to prioritise English and maths, if that is what their children need. However, that should not be at the expense of curriculum breadth and opportunity for young people who also need extra support.
We want every child in every state school to have a broad range of subjects and to have the opportunity to study a common core of knowledge that has been determined by experts and agreed by Parliament. I absolutely agree that it should be led by experts, which is why we have an independent panel of experts advising on the curriculum and assessment review. I absolutely recognise the strong track record of, for example, Michaela and the good outcomes it delivers for its students. I understand that, as hon. Members have rightly acknowledged, the vast majority of schools do follow the national curriculum.
It is our intention to create a common core framework right across our school system, regardless of the structure of the school. That is all we are trying to achieve with this fairly straightforward measure. To be honest, the attitude that is sometimes displayed and the fears that are being mongered just seem a little hysterical. Every child should have a high-quality education, which is all that we seek to ensure with the measures in the Bill.
Neil O'Brien
I read out the very real concerns of serious educational leaders with strong track records. The Minister says that they are hysterical.
Neil O'Brien
Well, she said the concerns are hysterical. They are not my concerns; they are concerns that have been put to this Committee by incredibly respected school leaders. The Minister says that only a few of them are using these freedoms. Well, if it is only a few, why should they not have the freedom to do what they know works? Why do Ministers think they know better? Let me just ask two specific questions. Will UTCs have to follow the curriculum as well, and will all the costs that fall on schools from this measure be met? I ask those questions now, because Ministers may want to get the answers from the Box.
Catherine McKinnell
Let me be clear: I have not referred to any academy leaders or professionals in our education system as expressing views that are hysterical. I have referred to hon. Members, and I was very clear about that in my comments. I have seen far too much of that in this Committee—putting words into Members’ mouths. It is not respectful to the people we are here to represent and serve, who are working extremely hard in our school system and contributing constructively to this debate. We are open to feedback, which is why we have two consultations out on a number of the measures being considered as part of our reforms. We absolutely welcome feedback; we welcome challenge. Actually, the level of challenge reflects how important this is to the people who contribute to the discussion and debate. The hysteria I was talking about referred to hon. Members and their characterisation of some of the changes.
For the sake of a reality check, let me just say that in 2022—Members should note these statistics—of primary schools in multi-academy trusts, 64% were good and 15% were outstanding; in single-academy trusts, 67% were good and 27% were outstanding; and in maintained schools, 76% were good and 16% were outstanding. There is no difference for children’s outcomes depending on the school’s status. This is not about academies versus maintained schools or anything like it; it is about making sure that we have a framework that serves every child and that every child has a core offer as part of their education. To treat it like some sort of terrible, terrifying prospect is a mischaracterisation of the reality of both the school system and the changes we are looking to make.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She took the words out of my mouth earlier when she challenged the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. The national curriculum offer and everything we are presenting as part of our reforms provide a floor, but not a ceiling on ambition, innovation, flexibility and the ability to give an outstanding and exemplary education to the children in this country. We celebrate and value success for our children, in whatever form it comes, whether that is an academy or a local authority-maintained school. Indeed, success comes in all those forms.
All we wish to see, through this fairly straightforward measure, is a knowledge-rich education—in answer to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston—and a curriculum that is cutting-edge and that ensures high and rising standards for every child. That is why we launched the curriculum and assessment review to take the advice of experts on bringing the curriculum up to date. It is why we want to see the national curriculum as the experience that every child should have, and the framework that every child should experience throughout their primary and secondary education, regardless of the type of state school that they attend. And it is why we will be asking Members to support clause stand part.
Before the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston asks, I will respond to his question on UTCs because—
Catherine McKinnell
We recognise the valuable contribution of UTCs in providing a distinctive technical education curriculum. However, we want to ensure that all children have access to a quality core curriculum. The curriculum and assessment review is helping us to make sure we have a broad, enriching curriculum from which every child can benefit. Once it is complete, we will work with UTCs to provide any support they need to implement the changes, because we recognise their particular offer.
Catherine McKinnell
Could I just respond to my hon. Friend’s point? I think the fundamental point he is making is that an obsession with the structure of a school is a distraction from the importance of ensuring the quality and outcomes experienced by the children within it. That is why this Government are focused on ensuring that every school has the fundamentals to provide that opportunity for children, whether that is having qualified teachers in the classroom or a curriculum and assessment framework that sets every child up to thrive. We are focused on ensuring that teachers have a fair pay framework, which we will get on to, and that there is consistency across the board, so that every school in every local community can co-operate—we will also get on to that—to ensure that children in that area, regardless of their background and needs, have the opportunity to thrive and achieve as part of their education.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 41 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 42
Academy schools: educational provision for improving behaviour
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Catherine McKinnell
Clause 42 will ensure that all mainstream and special state schools are subject to the same regulatory requirements and safeguards when directing pupils off site to improve their behaviour, creating a baseline between academies and maintained schools. Academy schools can already arrange off-site placements through their general powers, and in doing so they already follow the same guidance as maintained schools. However, technically there is inconsistency in the legal framework. Providing academies with the same explicit statutory power and equivalent limits and controls will strengthen the wider efforts to consistently safeguard all pupils and promote educational outcomes. It will also support consistency, scrutiny and transparency against misconduct or malpractice.
In using the power, academies will be required to follow the same statutory requirements as maintained schools, as set out in existing guidance. These include notifying the local authority where a pupil has an education, health and care plan; setting out the objectives of the off-site placement and keeping it under review; and keeping parents fully informed to meet pupils’ needs. I therefore recommend that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 42 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 43
Academies: power to secure performance of proprietor’s duties etc
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move amendment 78, in clause 43, page 102, leave out lines 35 and 36.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 79, in clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “may” to the end of line 3 on page 103 and insert
“exercise their powers under the funding agreement to terminate or require performance of the funding agreement in accordance with its terms.”
Amendment 88, in clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 39 and insert
“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”
This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty.
Amendment 89, in clause 43, page 103, line 2, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 3 and insert
“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”
This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy act unreasonably in respect of the exercise of a relevant power.
Amendment 77, in clause 43, page 103, line 3, at end insert—
“(2A) Where the Secretary of State exercises functions under this section, the Secretary of State must make a statement in the House of Commons which explains the actions taken and the reasons for taking such actions.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to make a statement to Parliament each time the Secretary of State uses the powers in this clause.
Clause stand part.
Neil O’Brien
This is a very centralising Bill. We have already talked about what PE kit people should be wearing at school; we have talked about whether schools will now have to apply to the Secretary of State to put up a bike rack. [Laughter.] Ministers laugh, but it is serious. They agreed to a clause just this morning that has that effect.
Neil O’Brien
It is not nonsense. It is your legislation. Sorry, let me correct the record: it is nonsense. This is nonsense legislation that we are being asked to pass.
Now we come on to something really serious that school leaders are warning us about, which is another completely out-of-control piece of centralisation. As drafted, the Bill will create the power for the Secretary of State to direct academy schools to do pretty much anything. Leora Cruddas, of the Confederation of School Trusts, has suggested a way to bring the currently unlimited clause 43 power under some limits:
“We do have concerns about the power to direct. We think it is too wide at the moment. We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we do not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits. Those limits should be around statutory duties on academy trusts, statutory guidance, the provisions in the funding agreement and charity law.”
That is precisely what Opposition amendments 88 and 89 would do. We are not against Ministers having a new power to intervene to get schools to fulfil their duties, but that is different; it is narrower than the current drafting. It may just be that when officials have gone away and tried to turn Ministers’ intentions into legislation, they have gone too far.
David Thomas, a successful headteacher, has made the same point:
“If the purpose is, as it says in the explanatory notes, to issue a direction to academy trusts to comply with their duty, that feels like a perfectly reasonable thing to be able to do. The Bill, as drafted, gives the Secretary of State the ability to ‘give the proprietor such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate’. I do not think it is appropriate for a Secretary of State to give an operational action plan to a school, but I think it is perfectly reasonable for a Secretary of State to tell a school that it needs to follow its duty. I think there is just a mismatch between the stated intention and the drafting, and I would correct that mismatch.”
I am not surprised that school leaders are concerned. The Government’s own policy summary notes make it clear that they intend to use the power to reach into schools and intervene on pretty much anything that the Department wants. They give the following example:
“The academy trust has failed to deal with a parental complaint and has not followed its complaints process. Therefore, the issue may be escalated to the Department to consider. In such cases, the Secretary of State could issue a compliance direction to ensure the trust addresses the complaint appropriately”.
It is crystal clear that the Government are taking a power to direct any academy school, without limit, on any issue they see fit. That is such a big move away from the whole idea of the academies programme—the idea of independent state-funded schools.
There are two ways of fixing the problem. Amendments 78 and 79 would simply delete the bit that is excessive, proposed new section 497C(1)(b); amendment 77 would require a statement to be made when the powers are used. Alternatively, amendments 88 and 89—this is, broadly speaking, the suggestion made by the Confederation of School Trusts—would be more incremental reforms. They would retain the text about direction but, in two relevant places, would limit it to
“compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”
The impact assessment for the Bill says that if schools do not comply with the new orders from the Secretary of State, the trustees may be found to be in contempt of court. This charge may come with punishments including fines. It is also possible that, in very extreme cases, individuals found in contempt of court could face a custodial sentence. Helpfully, the assessment says that that should be very rare, but what a long way we have travelled from the whole idea of academies as independent state schools!
That has been the theme as we have gone through the Bill: again and again, we are moving away from a culture of entrepreneurialism, can-do spirit and freedom—going out there and solving problems and making the magic happen for kids—and towards a compliance culture that is all about dealing with what the Secretary of State wants and clicking our heels when they say jump. Since 1988, we have been on a cross-party journey away from micromanagement and towards greater autonomy for schools.
Catherine McKinnell
Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 48% of schools are local authority-maintained schools? He seems to be denigrating their entire modus operandi in his characterisation of the way non-academies work. They are working hard and are delivering fantastic outcomes for children. We do not denigrate academies; I do not understand why the hon. Gentleman wishes to do so to maintained schools.
Neil O’Brien
It is always a bad sign when someone has to misrepresent completely what their opponent is trying to say. Allow me to address that point directly by, once again, reading what Leora Cruddas of the Confederation of School Trusts told the Committee:
“We accept that the policy intention is one of equivalence in relation to maintained schools, but maintained schools are different legal structures from academy trusts, and we do not think that the clauses in the Bill properly reflect that. It is too broad and it is too wide. We would like to work with the Government to restrict it to create greater limits.” ––[Official Report, Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 81, Q169.]
That is what our amendments seek to do.
To take the temperature out of the discussion, let me say that I do not have a problem with the Government having a new power of intervention to cut across their funding agreements with academies—although that is a big step, by the way. My problem is with the completely unlimited nature of the power. I am thinking about the effect of getting away from micromanagement over time. The sixth-form college I went to had become brilliant because it had managed to use the freedoms in the 1992 reforms to take a huge step away from micromanagement, but some of the older teachers there still remembered the days when they had to ring up the town hall if they wanted the heating turned up. Imagine that absurd degree of micromanagement. Terrifyingly, some schools in Scotland are still experiencing that insane degree of micromanagement; teachers there are currently on strike because their concerns about discipline are not being taken seriously, so we can see that freedom has worked in England.
I do not think that this was the intention of the Ministers, but the drafting of the clause is far too sweeping. It gives an unlimited power. I see no reason why the Ministers should not accept the suggestion from the Confederation of School Trusts, which our amendments seek to implement, that we limit that power in certain reasonable ways. It is fine for Ministers to be able to intervene more, but we need some limits. I am sure that the current Secretary of State wants only good things, but a bad future Secretary of State should not be able to do just anything they want.
The Ministers started from a reasonable point of view, but it has gone too far. I hope that they will work with the CST to turn the unlimited power into a limited one. Perhaps they will even accept our amendments, which would do exactly that.
Munira Wilson
I was going to say largely the same as the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, although I think he was exaggerating slightly in suggesting that the power will lead to local authorities telling schools whether or not they can switch their heating on and off.
Munira Wilson
All right. I have a lot of sympathy with amendments 88 and 89, and I agree that the drafting of the clause seems at odds with the explanatory notes. There is a potential overreach of the Secretary of State’s powers over schools, so I look forward to hearing what the Minister can say to temper what is in the Bill. I have no problem ideologically with what I think are the Ministers’ intentions; it is just that the drafting seems to allow a level of overreach and micromanagement from Whitehall, which I think we all wish to avoid.
Neil O’Brien
The Minister mentions a trust that is not complying with its legal duties; I do not think we would have a problem with addressing that, but that is not what is drafted here. As the provision is drafted, the Secretary of State can intervene whenever he or she thinks, in their own eye, that the school is behaving unreasonably. The only appeal the school will have is judicial review. The Minister is saying a lot of sensible stuff, but that is just too much, and I am keen to press amendment 88.
Catherine McKinnell
I have already responded to that point, both in my substantive comments and subsequent responses. I think we will have to agree to disagree. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Neil O’Brien
For all the reasons we have just rehearsed, I am keen to push amendment 88. Ministers may well vote against it today, but I hope that later on in the process they will listen to what school leaders are saying. There is a group of amendments, but I intend to push only amendment 88 to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment 78.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 88, clause 43, page 102, line 37, leave out from “directions” to the end of line 39 and insert
“as are necessary to secure compliance with statutory duties, the requirements of the Funding Agreement, or charity law.”—(Neil O’Brien.)
This amendment would limit the Secretary of State’s power of direction should an Academy breach, or act unreasonably in respect of, the performance of a relevant duty.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Neil O’Brien
I beg to move amendment 80, in clause 44, page 103, leave out from line 25 to line 8 on page 104 and insert—
“(a) in subsection (A1), after ‘measures)’ insert ‘unless the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available’;
(b) after subsection (A1) insert—
‘(A2) Where the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must, within 14 days, publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school and to secure its rapid improvement.
(A3) A plan published under subsection (A2) must include—
(a) the parties with responsibility for the school and its improvement;
(b) the parties who will take action to improve provision in the school;
(c) the resources that will be provided to the relevant parties, including who will provide the resources and when the resources will be provided; and
(d) the intended outcomes of the plan, with the relevant timetables for the outcomes.
(A4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on—
(a) the number of times the Secretary of State has published a plan under subsection (A2);
(b) the resources which have been provided as part of any plans; and
(c) the outcomes of any plans.’”
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 81, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (1), insert—
‘(1ZA) The Secretary of State must make an Academy order in respect of a maintained school in England if—
(a) Ofsted has judged the school to require significant improvement; or
(b) a Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence team has judged the school to be significantly underperforming when compared with neighbouring schools with similar demographics.’”
Amendment 82, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (7), insert—
‘(7A) No application or petition for judicial review may be made or brought in relation to a decision taken by the Secretary of State to make an Academy order.’”
Amendment 95, in clause 44, page 103, line 28, at end insert—
“(c) after subsection (1A) insert—
‘(1B) Before deciding whether to issue an Academy order in respect of a maintained school, the Secretary of State must issue an invitation for expressions of interest for suitable sponsors.
(1C) The Secretary of State must make an assessment of whether or not to issue an Academy order based on the established track record of parties who responded to the invitation issued under subsection (1B) with an expression of interest in raising school standards.’”
Amendment 96, in clause 44, page 104, line 8, at end insert—
“(10) Before the amendments made by this section come into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report detailing—
(a) the mechanisms, including Academy Orders, by which improvement of school standards can be achieved, and
(b) guidance on the appropriate usage of these mechanisms.”
Clause stand part.
Neil O’Brien
The Bill ends the automatic conversion of failing schools into academies. That measure was put in place because it became apparent that the most effective way to turn around failing schools at scale was to put them under new management. It also became apparent that when there was a question of discretion and choice, that opened the way for bitterly divisive local campaigns and time-consuming legal action.
The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said on Second Reading:
“I know from bitter personal experience that any change to the status of a school can become highly political. The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty, which is in nobody’s interests.”—[Official Report, 8 January 2025; Vol. 759, c. 902.]
She also said on the “Today” programme that the end of the academies order will mean that
“the DFE will find itself mired in the high court in judicial review. When we tried to transfer our first failing school to a Harris academy we spent two years in court, and children…don’t have that time to waste.”
Rob Tarn, the chief executive of the Northern Education Trust, has made the same point:
“If there’s no longer a known, blanket reality…There is a risk that, where it’s been determined a school needs to join a strong trust, it will take much longer and we will go back to the early days of academisation when people went to court.”
Catherine McKinnell
Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that I should be predicting which schools go into special measures and which have an Ofsted outcome that requires significant improvement?
Neil O’Brien
I am afraid that the Minister is the one making the prediction. It is her consultation document that says that the Government expect that twice as many schools will go through some combination of either RISE or structural intervention. The Government must know, to be able to make the claim—
Neil O’Brien
Just a second. To make the claim that Ministers want to make for all kinds of reasons, they have to know. It is not me who is making the prediction, but them. I just want them to give us the numbers behind it.
Catherine McKinnell
I think that the hon. Gentleman is conflating the identification of stuck schools that under his Government remained consistently underperforming—about 600 schools, with 312,000 children. The RISE teams will immediately focus on those as the immediate priority for improving outcomes.
Neil O’Brien
I am trying to get the Minister to de-conflate her own statistics. The Government want to present the statistic in a deliberately conflated way and I am trying to get it de-conflated. This is the Government’s statistic; I am not offering it. I would like to have some sense from them of how many schools—they must have the figure to make the claim—are going to go through structural interventions so that we can compare the future regime to the previous regime. The Ministers are the ones making the claim that this will intervene on more schools; I am not claiming that. I think it is reasonable to ask for the numbers behind the Government’s own claims, which they did not have to make.
There is an irony behind all this. Ministers have said that they worry about having different types of schools and they want things in the system to be generally more consistent. Currently, the school system is a sort of halfway house: about 80% of secondary schools are now academies, but fewer than half of primaries are—so just over half of state schools are now academies; most academies are in a trust and so on.
In the absence of this Bill we were gradually moving over time, in an organic way, to get to a consistent system based on academies and trusts, which would then at some point operate on the same framework. But the Bill effectively freezes that halfway: it is ending the academisation order and enabling local authorities to open more new schools again. I have never been quite clear about why Ministers want a situation where they do not end up with an organic move to a single system but remain with the distinction between academies and local authority maintained schools, particularly given the drive for consistency elsewhere in the Bill.
In the past, there have been people in the Government who have held anti-academies views, or at least been prepared to bandwagon with anti-academies campaigners on the left. When running for leadership of the Labour party, the Prime Minister said:
“The academisation of our schools is centralising at its core and it has fundamentally disempowered parents, pupils and communities.”
That was not long ago; there he was, on the bandwagon with the anti-academies people.
Likewise, the Deputy Prime Minister said she wanted to stop academy conversion and
“scrap the inefficient free school programme”.
We talked about the evidence that those programmes worked when Labour Members asked for it. The Deputy Prime Minister said that the free schools programme is inefficient, but the average Progress 8 score of a free school is 0.25. That is a fantastic score, getting a quarter of a grade better across all subjects, which is beating the national average. That is what the Deputy Prime Minister thought was so inefficient, but the opposite is the truth. The Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister are not the only ones: the Culture Secretary spoke at an anti-academies conference. The Energy Secretary said that free schools were the last thing we need—but actually, for many kids they are the first. When Ministers in this Government say that they just want more options, and that they are still prepared to fight all the usual suspects to put failing schools under new management—even where left-wing local campaigns are against it—we start from a bit of a sceptical position, because of the relatively recent comments made by senior Ministers.
We do not have to imagine the future. The other day, we saw a choice: we saw a straw in the wind. Glebefields primary school in Tipton was issued with an academy order after being rated less than good twice. The DFE previously told Glebefields that the Education Secretary did not believe the case met the criteria to revoke academisation, despite the change of policy before us. The school threatened legal action and the Secretary of State changed her mind. I worry that there will be many such cases, as well as court cases, and that too many children will find themselves in schools that are failing them, and in need of new management that they will not get.
Ultimately, our amendments seek to limit the damage of this clause, but fundamentally we think that it is a mistake. We worry that, in a few years’ time, Ministers will realise what some of their Back-Bench colleagues already realise: why this clause is a big mistake.
Munira Wilson
On clause 44, Liberal Democrats have long supported the position that a failing school, or one that Ofsted has identified as requiring intervention, should not automatically be made an academy. That is our long-standing policy position, so when the Bill was published I welcomed that measure.
However, I felt the need to table amendments because, as I stated yesterday in the Chamber, I was concerned that we were being asked to take away the automatic provision of issuing an academy order without knowing what the school inspection regime would be, and were therefore being asked to legislate in a vacuum. I still think that it is wrong that this legislation started to be considered before we had yesterday’s announcements, but I recognise that the Government have now made them.
I was quite taken, in the oral evidence session, in which we heard from various witnesses, not least by Sir Jon Coles, who said he would like to see what Government policy is underpinning this particular measure, and what the Government’s school improvement policy is. I think the jury is still out on what we heard yesterday, but the fact that we have had a policy announcement negates, to some extent, amendment 95 in my name. It sought to ensure that there was something in place, so that if there were not an automatic academy order, the Secretary of State would invite bids from successful academy trusts that had a track record of turning schools around.
I say to the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston that academisation is not a silver bullet. He has enjoyed quoting many times the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden, who spoke out against her own Front Bench, but she even said herself on Radio 4 in the interview that he cited—which I listened to very carefully on the day it was broadcast—that academisation is not a silver bullet. I have not seen it in my own constituency, but I note that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith) pointed out on Second Reading that she worked in areas in the north-west where there were some schools with very vulnerable pupils that had not been improved by being switched from academy trust to academy trust. Clearly, it is not always the correct answer. I therefore think it is important that Ministers set out the whole range of options that are available to ensure that we can turn schools around—and turn them around quickly—because our children deserve the best possible opportunities to flourish and thrive.
Some questions were posed on that yesterday, and I am sure that Ministers will address it over the coming weeks—although I welcome comments today—but, with the RISE teams that are being put in place, the number of advisers is really quite small for the number of schools.
Neil O'Brien
The hon. Lady, in her speech, is talking a lot of sense. I would just point out to her that in the last Parliament, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, per-pupil funding, in real terms, went up by 11%. There will always be constraints. Indeed, the current Ministers have cut the academisation grant and the trust improvement capacity fund, and cut Latin, maths, computing, and physics support; lots of things have been cut. In fairness, schools funding, per pupil, went up a lot faster in the last Parliament than it did in 2010 to 2015, when the hon. Lady’s party was in government. But there are always—[Interruption.]
Munira Wilson
I am very happy to respond to that. The hon. Gentleman will know full well—[Interruption.] Sorry; if the hon. Gentleman wishes to make these party political jibes, I am very happy to come back at him on them. In 2010 to 2015, it was the Liberal Democrats in government who made sure that schools’ day-to-day funding was not cut. We were responsible for introducing the pupil premium, which, post 2015, was never uprated.
Munira Wilson
In a moment. I will make this point, because I wanted to pick up on it in the oral evidence session when people were asking questions about attainment, but we ran out of time. The pupil premium was a Liberal Democrat front-page manifesto policy in 2010. That was implemented and it has helped disadvantaged pupils. After 2015 it was not uprated in line with inflation, and that is why our disadvantaged children up and down the country are now getting less money, in real terms, to support their education. We have seen a widening attainment gap since covid in particular.
So, I will take no lectures from the Conservative Benches on supporting disadvantaged pupils. It was our policy on free school meals, and our policy on the pupil premium, that came to bear. Actually, it was after 2015 that we saw funding cuts. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston boasted that per-pupil funding was raised; the Conservatives only got it back to 2010 levels by the time they left government in 2024. I am sure that Members across this room, when they visit their schools, will hear stories about the funding pressures.
Munira Wilson
I think we are diverging somewhat from the clause and the amendments.
Catherine McKinnell
We greatly value the role of trusts in the school system. Indeed, we recognise the improvements they have brought, particularly for disadvantaged children. We recognise the excellence and innovation seen right across our schools and trusts. As I said earlier, we also recognise that a lot of the capacity to drive improvement across the system exists within those academy trusts, and we will harness that.
Without single headline grades, Ofsted will continue to identify those schools that require significant improvement or are in special measures and it will be able to make judgments to inform the level of support that should be given. If a school in special measures does not have the leadership capacity to improve, the proposal subject to consultation is that it should be immediately moved towards academisation. Where a school does have the leadership capacity to improve, for the next year, while we are building up the capacity of the RISE teams—as I said, 20 began work yesterday, but we recognise we are not up to full capacity yet—it will be issued with an academy order. However, once we have the RISE teams to go in and support the leadership team to drive improvements within those schools, we will put in that support, rather than going straight to an academy order.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank my hon. Friend for that clarification, and I agree; there has been far too much of that in this Committee.
Neil O’Brien
I literally just read out the Prime Minister’s own words. They are not my words. If he did not want to say them, he did not have to say them. I want to press the Minister, because I can sense that she is starting to wind up. She is talking about how many schools will go through structural intervention—in other words, academisation. The Government have put out a statistic saying that there will be twice as many schools going through RISE and academisation combined over the next three years as there were over the last two years. The Government clearly have a statistic for how many schools they expect to go through academisation, and I am keen that the Minister tell the House what that number is. How many schools do they expect to go through academisation in the next three years? They obviously know.
Catherine McKinnell
To be clear, we have identified the 600 schools that require RISE intervention, and that will be mandated—
Catherine McKinnell
If I could just finish, that will be mandated intervention for schools that have been consistently underperforming. They are schools that are not part of the previous Government’s procedure for mandating intervention within schools. They are schools that have been sitting just above the mandated intervention procedures but have been consistently underperforming. This is one of the big failures of the previous Government. We have spent a lot of time in the last few days recognising the great successes of many educational reforms over the years, but it is a crying shame that so many schools are still struggling and have not had the support they need to improve over the years.
Catherine McKinnell
No. The idea that a one-trick-pony approach to improving schools will get the required outcome is simply not borne out by the facts.
I will give a piece of data that might help to illustrate my point. This is in no way a reflection of academies—we absolutely support academies, and we cannot wait to see RISE working with academies to drive great practice and improvements across the system. However, 42% of schools that were placed in special measures or judged as requiring significant improvement in 2023-24 by Ofsted were academies. The idea that simply academising, academising, academising will get the outcomes we need for children is a narrow-minded, inflexible approach that has let far too many children down. We are not willing to put up with that.
Catherine McKinnell
I will get on to answering the hon. Gentleman’s question, if he would like me to. He can ask it again or ask another one.
Neil O’Brien
I am keen to get a piece of information that the Government have not properly put into the public domain. They clearly know how many schools they expect to go through academisation in the next three years. What is the number? That is all I am looking for.
Catherine McKinnell
I will need to write to the hon. Gentleman to answer that specific question, as I think it is more complex than he identifies. There are obviously schools that we know are underperforming, and that is where we want to target our resources. Those in special measures and those that require significant improvement will undergo academy conversion over the next 12 months. We probably have the number for that, but ongoing Ofsted inspections will identify new schools that will fall into that category, and they will need to be academised. We cannot predict that, and it would not be fair for us to do so.
We have roughly 312,000 children at schools that we have already identified as struggling schools that are not getting any support or intervention. We are directing targeted, mandated RISE support to them. Clearly, future schools will unfortunately fall into those categories as more Ofsted inspections are undertaken over the next year. I therefore do not have the exact figure as to how many will fall into whichever category.
We obviously hope that schools will benefit from the universal RISE service that we will bring forward to support all schools to improve, regardless of their process. That, however, is part of the consultation; we will look to roll it out in due course.
To be clear on the number of RISE advisers, we recognise that 20 seems like a small number, but they will be the facilitators of a much larger army of school improvement expertise that we know already exists in the system. That will be put together with schools that require support. By April, we will have 50 advisers as we are undertaking a recruitment process to bring in the best of the best for school improvement support. They will not deliver the school improvement but will ensure that school improvement is made available and matched up with schools that need it.
As the right hon. Member for East Hampshire will know, the national leaders of education, who are school improvers, were deployed for a basic 10 days. That was obviously valuable, but RISE will draw on a much broader range of institutional capacity, and it will bring in more than one provider. There will be more help and expertise, and there will be more time and more money. We are not going to waste any time. We are investing in making sure that children do not spend one more day in a school that is not giving them the outcomes they deserve. I hope the Committee will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.
Neil O’Brien
I am keen to press the amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Munira Wilson
Amendment 47 would, very simply, make the Secretary of State’s recommendations on pay and conditions a minimum for all schools, whether maintained or academy schools, as the Secretary of State and Ministers have now confirmed was their intention with the Bill. I note that, since I tabled this, new schedule 1 has been tabled. I question why we need a separate order-making power, with all the complexities set out in the new schedule—I am sure the Minister will address that—but I think we are at one in saying that the recommendations should be a floor not a ceiling.
I return once again to the data laid out in the House of Commons Library document on the Bill, which suggests that there is very little variation in pay between maintained schools and academies. Again, I am not 100% sure why we need the new schedule; I just think we should have a floor for all schools. I think it is great that where schools have the means, they are able to pay a premium to attract teachers in shortage subjects, challenging areas or schools that may have had their challenges, but, as we all know, the reality is that most schools are massively strapped for cash—most headteachers and governors I speak to say that. The idea that they are all going to be able to pay a premium is for the birds. None the less, those schools that are able to should absolutely have that freedom.
Neil O’Brien
We have been on quite a journey on this clause. At the Education Committee on 15 January, the Secretary of State said that critics of the Bill were confused. She said:
“It has become clear to me that there has been some confusion and some worry about what I have said in this area, so today I want to be absolutely clear that all schools will have full flexibility to innovate with a floor and no ceiling on what that means.”
The fact that, subsequent to that, we have pages and pages of Government amendments to their own Bill suggests pretty powerfully that it was not school leaders and critics of the Bill who were confused.
This is a very significant measure. The impact assessment notes that an Employer Link survey conducted in 2021 found that over 28% of employers varied in some way from the school teachers’ pay and conditions document. Freedoms have been quite widely used. As Sir Jon Coles said in evidence to this Committee, just because people are using the freedoms does not necessarily mean that they know they are using them. Some of the innovations are great—they are things we all want for our teachers and schools. For example, United Learning, Jon Coles’s trust, was paying 6.5% on top of the national pay and conditions to retain good people. Dixons was innovating with a really interesting nine-day fortnight, so that teachers in really tough areas got more preparation time. This is really powerful innovation that we do not want to take away.
The Secretary of State called for a floor not a ceiling and said that she wanted
“that innovation and flexibility to be available to all schools regardless of type.”
We think that is a good principle and we agree about extending it to all schools. That is why our new clause 7 would extend freedoms over pay and conditions to local authority maintained schools as well. Given that the Government said previously that it would be good to have the same freedoms for everybody, we assume that they will accept the new clause so that we can have the floor not a ceiling for everybody, not just academies.
If a floor not a ceiling is right for teachers, surely it is right in principle for the other half of the schools workforce. Surely, school support staff—actually, they are the majority of the workforce in schools—are not worth any less than teachers, and the same principles should apply to them. This is critical. Lots of trusts are using the advantages of scale to make back-office savings and efficiencies, and ploughing them back into additional benefits and pay to support really good staff. I hope that Ministers will support our new clause 64, when we come to it, and accept that the principle that they have applied to teachers should apply to everybody else in our schools, too.
Ellie Chowns
I warmly welcome the proposal to ensure that there is a level playing field for pay for teachers who teach in different types of schools. Does the Minister consider that now is the time to take a similar approach to addressing pay for leaders of schools? I found it pretty jaw dropping to hear recently that the pay and pension of a CEO of a well-known multi-academy trust topped £600,000 per year. I took the trouble of having a look at that particular academy trust and found that it has 168 people on salaries of over £100,000, and it covers just 55 schools.
It is clearly not sustainable for the pay of leaders of multi-academy trusts to continue to increase in proportion to the number of schools in those trusts. If that approach was taken to salary setting, the Minister herself would be on millions of pounds a year. We had an interesting discussion earlier about the difference between correlation and causation. There is worrying evidence—I have seen interesting analysis from Warwick Mansell, for example—showing correlation between the prevalence of non-QTS teachers and high pupil-teacher ratios in multi-academy trusts and high levels of executive pay. That strongly suggests that such trusts are diverting or channelling more funding into higher executive pay rather than frontline teaching, which is surely of concern.
While I welcome the moves to ensure equitability across teacher salaries in all types of state school, is it not time to address pay inequalities and excessive pay in certain leadership functions in multi-academy trusts in particular? I note that the Public Accounts Committee drew attention back in 2022 to the DFE not having a handle on executive pay in the sector. I would warmly welcome the Minister’s comments on whether the Government have any intention to take action to address this.
Neil O’Brien
It is generous of the Minister to give way. To address the point that I raised in my speech, does she agree that the principle of a floor but no ceiling should apply to school support staff as well as teachers?
Catherine McKinnell
Yes, I was going to come to that point, because it is welcome that the hon. Gentleman focused on school support staff. He is absolutely right that they are integral to any successful school. However, we do not intend to amend the provisions, because we are legislating for the school support staff negotiating body in the Employment Rights Bill, and we are creating a new system for support in 2025. Rather than try to amend the existing one, we are creating a new negotiating body for them. It makes sense that the outcomes from the new body will apply in same way to all state-funded schools in England.
The primary legislation does not commit us to a one-size-fits-all approach, and so there will be flexibilities for local circumstance to be able to flex above minimum agreement. Again, there will also be a floor but no ceiling for school support staff. We will continue to work with the sector, during and after the passage of the Bill, to ensure that the school support staff negotiating body meets the needs of all school types. The shadow Minister’s intervention and focus on school support staff is absolutely welcome.
In response to the specific question of why we need a separate order-making power, we have clarified the objective by tabling an amendment that requires all academy schools and alternative provision academies to pay their teachers at least the minimum level of pay set out in secondary legislation. Subsequent reforms to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document will ensure there is no ceiling on the maximum that maintained schools can pay for their teachers.
The amendment will also require academies to have regard to the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, ensuring an established starting point for all state schools while giving confidence that existing or future changes benefiting teachers and pupils can continue. Maintained schools will continue to follow the schoolteachers’ pay and conditions document, but the Government are committed to making changes to the document following the Bill’s passage, to remove the ceiling and build in flexibility so that all schools can innovate to attract and retain the best talent.
We absolutely want to ensure that the freedoms that academies have enjoyed will continue. Indeed, they will be extended to maintained schools. In terms of examples used, such as the nine-day week—
Catherine McKinnell
I am extremely grateful for your flexibility on this matter, Sir Christopher. I have a very short contribution to make on clause 46. It is a minor technical change that sensibly tidies up legal provision that is no longer necessary. The clause repeals section 128 of the Education Act 2002. That section enabled maintained schools in education action zones to apply to determine their own pay and conditions for teachers. However, as education action zones have not existed since 2005, the most appropriate action is to repeal section 128 of that Act entirely.
Although the legislation to create new education action zones remains in place, the effect of the clause is negligible given that no education action zones currently exist. If any new ones were subsequently created, as a result of this clause they would no longer be able to opt out of the statutory pay and conditions framework, which is entirely consistent with the Government’s new approach to teachers’ pay.
Neil O'Brien
Sir Christopher, you are a superb Chairman. You are also a very kind and thoughtful one for those of us who are not quick enough on the draw.
I will not make detailed comments here. We are abolishing something that was set up in the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and it struck me that there are related ideas that the Minister might want to pick up rather than abolish.
As well as the education action zones that we are discussing here, the Blair Government had another go at that same idea in the 2002 Act and enabled huge amounts of school freedom in particular areas to bring about improvement. Although lots of work was done on that legislation and it was passed through the House, and lots of work was done to implement it, there was a change of Secretary of State and, strangely, the powers, although they are on the statute book, were never commenced.
We, as the Opposition, do not have the power to commence them, but I would recommend to the Minister that she does. I think there is a great opportunity here to get some innovation into the system. New clause 67, when we come to it, may look familiar to Ministers and to DFE lawyers, because I am afraid we have stolen it—it is a straightforward rip-off of 2002 Blair era reforms.
Even though in this clause abolishes a bit of Blair-era reform, we encourage Ministers to get back on the reforming horse and to return to that spirit. We hope when we come to that new clause that Ministers will spot what we are trying to do.
Catherine McKinnell
I note the spoiler for amendments to come.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 46 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 47
Co-operation between schools and local authorities
Question proposed, That clause 47 stand part of the Bill.
Catherine McKinnell
Clause 47 creates a new co-operation duty for schools and local authorities. It aims to strengthen how schools and local authorities work together on school admissions and place planning.
Collaboration and co-operation on these issues is vital to ensuring that all children, especially the most vulnerable, can receive a school education. The clause places a duty on mainstream state schools and local authorities to co-operate with each other regarding their respective school admissions functions. It also places a duty on mainstream, special and alternative provision state schools to co-operate with local authorities regarding their place-planning functions.
For the admissions and place-planning system to function effectively, co-operation between schools and local authorities is essential. For example, local authorities need to regularly engage with local schools to produce and deliver proposals for ensuring that there are sufficient school places.
That process normally works well and we know that the vast majority of schools and local authorities already work together effectively to ensure that there is sufficient supply of school places and that local admission systems are working to support parent choice and allowing children to achieve and thrive. However, until now there has been no general duty on schools and local authorities to co-operate on these important issues.
In some instances, that has led to some schools and local authorities acting unilaterally or unhelpfully in regard to admissions or local place planning, without recognising the impact of their decisions on local communities. These new duties will send a strong message to schools and local authorities about the importance of co-operation on school admissions and place planning. As a result, we expect that schools and local authorities will seek to act more collaboratively on these issues, for example, sharing information in a timely manner and ensuring that they are working together in the best interests of the local community.
The absence of specific duties on co-operation also means that there are limited options available for the Secretary of State to intervene where a school or local authority is refusing to co-operate on these issues. Formalising a need to co-operate as a statutory duty will provide a mechanism to address such a situation. Where a school or local authority is failing or refusing to co-operate, the Secretary of State will be able to use her existing and planned enforcement powers to intervene, for example by considering directing the party at fault to take specific steps to comply with their co-operation duty.
Neil O'Brien
I will be quite brief. Clauses 47 to 50 are all of a piece, though it is the last of them, clause 50, that we have the greatest concerns about. In the interest of time, I will reserve my comments on the other clauses until later.
On clause 47, I just want to note my concerns that a rather vaguely defined duty to co-operate should not be abused by local authorities, and that a school’s failure to co-operate to the satisfaction of the local authority should not be used as a trigger for some of the rather alarming powers in clause 40. I just mark my concerns on this one, particularly about the vagueness of the duty to co-operate. I will return to more specific concerns on later clauses.