Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(3 days, 20 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I can inform the House that Lords amendment 38X engages Commons financial privilege. If the Lords amendment is agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 26
Power to require internet service providers to prevent or restrict access by children to internet services
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendments 38V to 38X to Commons Amendment 38J, and proposes Amendments (a) to (j) to Commons Amendments 38J and 38K in lieu of the Lords Amendments.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to consider the following Government motion:
That this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment 105C.
Olivia Bailey
I am pleased to speak once again on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and I will start by reminding colleagues why it matters. First, and most importantly, this Bill is about keeping children safe, ensuring that no child is let down by the system, and ensuring that children in care get the support and love that they deserve. This Bill is about high standards in schools for all our children, so that every child can get on in life and succeed; it is about excellent teachers in every school following our modern, world-leading national curriculum; and it is about removing barriers to opportunity and lifting 100,000 children out of poverty through our expansion of free school meals.
There will be no more eye-watering uniform bills, and there will be free breakfast clubs in every primary school. We are already seeing the difference that this is making: children enjoying not just a healthy breakfast, but a wonderful, supportive start to the school day. That is driving improvements in attendance and behaviour, and saving parents time and money, as this Government continue to do everything we can to support people with the cost of living. The Bill ensures safety and opportunity for all children in this country, and as my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary said when she introduced it, this Bill is for them.
I am grateful to everybody who has engaged with the passage of this legislation in both Houses, and I am glad that on the issues we have most recently discussed—admissions and particularly phones in schools—we have found a way forward. I thank the noble Baroness Barran, the Opposition spokesperson in the other place, for meeting me this afternoon to discuss our shared ambition to ensure that children should not have access to mobile phones at any point in the school day. I am glad that Members of the other place have supported that position today.
Lords amendment 105C is a minor amendment to adjust the Bill’s long title, to reflect the addition of the allergies measures.
On the remaining question of access to social media, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised across both Houses about the importance of the Government acting swiftly once the consultation has concluded, and we have significantly strengthened the power. The Government have said repeatedly that it is a question of how we act, not if, but to put this beyond any doubt, we are placing a clear statutory requirement that the Secretary of State “must”, rather than “may”, act following the consultation. That brings forward regulations without pre-empting the consultation’s outcomes, and does not ignore the tens of thousands of parents and children who have already engaged with us.
Let us be clear: the status quo cannot continue. We are consulting on the mechanism, which is the right thing to do, but we are clear that under any outcome we will impose some form of age or functionality for children under 16. I can also confirm that consideration of restrictions such as curfews will be in addition to that, not instead of it. As the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has said, we are focused on addictive features, harmful algorithmically-driven content and features such as stranger pairing, which we know can be most damaging to children’s safety and privacy.
The Government have committed in legislation to publishing a timeline as part of the statutory progress report already set out in the Bill. Recognising the strength of feeling and our shared determination to reach the quickest possible action, we are reducing the timeline further this evening. Our statutory progress report must now be made three months after the Bill receives Royal Assent, reflecting our intention to quickly produce a response following the consultation. Following that report, we will have 12 months to lay regulations, but our firm intention is to move faster, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology has been clear that we aim to do so by the end of the year.
In exceptional circumstances, the Government have the option to extend the timeline by a further six months. To be clear, we have no intention to use this six-month backstop, except for in serious and unforeseen circumstances. In that event, we would need to return to Parliament to explain why the extension was needed. In recognition of the strong concerns expressed about harmful and addictive design features, we have further specified that the Secretary of State must have due regard to such features when deciding how to exercise the power and making future regulations.
We all share the same objective: keeping children safe online. These changes give us the strongest foundation for quick and decisive action.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
You talk about swift action, but actually what you talked about—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I have not spoken about swift action. Would the hon. Member like to make another short intervention appropriately?
Victoria Collins
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Minister talks about swift action, but the timelines put forward in the Lords still add up to 21 months before there is action. Does the Minister believe that that is at all swift? I do not think that parents will.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I remind Back-Bench colleagues who wish to contribute that their contributions must relate to the amendments in front of us.
Fred Thomas
I politely disagree about dithering and delay. The Government are getting on as quickly as possible. The consultation was launched rapidly and is taking place right now, and the Government have committed to implementing the findings of the consultation as quickly as possible. I can assure the hon. Lady and the whole House that Back Benchers such as myself and my colleagues on the Government Benches will be holding the Government to account to ensure that they do that as quickly as possible. I have been assured that they are going to do so, and I take them at their word. It is really important that the House gets behind these measures, and I am extremely grateful to Ministers for making this happen.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I am dismayed that we find ourselves here yet again on this Bill. I remind the House that this is the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, and currently one of the biggest threats to our children’s wellbeing is online harms, not least as a result of harmful social media, alongside other online harms such as addictive gaming and chatbots.
I recognise and welcome that the Government have moved a little since we last debated amendments to the Bill last week: Ministers have finally made the commitment in legislation that the Government must take action, rather than may take action. There has also been some limited movement on the issue of addictive by design—a key principle that the Liberal Democrats have been pressing—although clearer and stronger wording on this point would be helpful, not least in view of the recent court cases in the US.
Critically, we have been pressing for a clear time-bound commitment to action. I must say that the initial timeline put forward by the Government in the other place this afternoon was, frankly, laughable. When parents and carers, young people, grandparents and teachers in their tens of thousands are demanding urgent action on teenagers’ access to harmful social media, setting out a three-year timeline for introducing regulations to this place—let alone implementing them—was ludicrous. I note that this evening the Government have shortened that period to 21 months.
Ministers have said repeatedly from the Dispatch Box that the current consultation is very short and sharp. I welcome the fact that they have committed to bringing forward a report in three months’ time, whereas previously they had said that it would take six months, but why do they need a further full year to lay regulations, and then a further six months’ buffer? Countries around the world are taking action right now. This Government have shown that when they want to move quickly on an issue, they have the means to do so. The compromising of children’s wellbeing and safety online every single hour of every single day is a damn good reason to move quickly and to bring forward amendments acceptable to both Houses of Parliament and, most importantly, to the people of this country.
In the debate in the other place this afternoon, we heard excellent speeches from across the party divides—Labour, Conservative, Cross-Bench, Liberal Democrat—all calling for urgent action. A number backed Lord Nash’s amendment again, even though many, including the Liberal Democrats, are unhappy with his particular approach, all because we want to ensure that the Government move further and faster.
May I draw the Minister’s attention to the noble Baroness Kidron’s excellent amendment that was considered in the other place this afternoon? As the Government will know, she is widely respected on the subject of online safety. Her amendment deals with all these important issues: safety by design; a harms-based approach with variable age-gating; and allowing the Government eight months to lay regulations and up to 12 months in total to enact them. Indeed, Lord Nash’s amendment, which the Government are choosing to vote down, committed to action within eight months, instead of this three months, plus six months, plus 12 months, plus another six months, adding up to 21 months before we might see any action. My noble Friend Lord Clement-Jones set out clearly that the Liberal Democrats support the approach set out in Baroness Kidron’s amendment, and I strongly agree with him.
I would like to repeat my noble Friend Lord Mohammed’s offer: we stand ready to come together, cross-party, to act together, legislate together and protect our children from online harms and ensure that teenagers do not have access to harmful social media. The time is now. We will keep pressing through the night if necessary, until Prorogation, to ensure that our children and young people are not let down by this Government at this critical moment.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 week, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I beg to move,
That this House insists on its amendment 38J and disagrees with Lords amendments 38V to 38X to amendment 38J.
Madam Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 102, but does not insist on its amendments 102C to 102G and proposes amendments (a) to (d) in lieu of the Lords amendment.
That this House insists on its disagreement with Lords amendment 106, but does not insist on amendments 106C to 106E and proposes amendments (a) to (c) in lieu of the Lords amendment.
Olivia Bailey
I am pleased to speak on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill for our third consideration of Lords amendments. The Bill is the biggest single piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and it will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care system, so that every child can achieve and thrive. Today, I ask the House to again reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation.
I turn first to Lords amendment 102 on the circumstances in which the independent adjudicator can specify a lower published admission number following an upheld objection. In this age of declining roles, it is important that these powers exist to ensure that every child has the opportunity to have a great school place. But the Government have been clear throughout this process that school quality and parental choice must be at the heart of PAN decisions. As committed to by my noble Friend Lady Smith in the other place, we have tabled amendments in lieu reflecting this. These amendments place a requirement on the face of the Bill for adjudicators to take account of school quality and parental preference before deciding a PAN following an upheld objection. They will also require the adjudicator, before making a decision to reduce the school’s PAN, to consult key parties about alternatives to lowering the school’s admissions number. Those parties are the admissions authority, the local authority and the Secretary of State, which in practice means consulting the relevant Department for Education regional director.
We are also taking a power to make it clear that we can require the adjudicator to consult additional parties in line with commitments in our policy paper. Through the Bill, we will ensure that a robust decision-making framework is in place to protect high-quality education and parental choice, and we will continue to engage with stakeholders, such as the Confederation of School Trusts, on this measure, including on proposed changes to regulations and the school admissions code.
I now turn to Lords amendments 38V to 38X on children’s access to social media. There is a clear consensus across this House on the need to protect children online, but our consultation goes further than these amendments, considering a wider set of options, including risks beyond social media, such as gaming and AI chatbots. Hon. Members should have no doubt that it is not a question of whether the Government act but how they act to deliver strong and enduring protections for children online. The House should also be clear that the Government will act quickly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I am surprised to not see Mr Adam Jogee on his feet, considering the level of chuntering he has been doing from a seated position. You do not wish to contribute formally?
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
First, I welcome the Government’s decision to introduce a statutory ban on mobile phones in schools. I appreciate that the guidance previously proposed was clear and that schools must take account of Government guidance, but where an issue is unequivocal—and I think the need for mobile phones to be absent from schools unless there is a clear need for an exception is unequivocal—putting the matter into legislation is the most straightforward way to ensure compliance, and it provides clarity for the public.
However, what approach will the Minister take to the guidance accompanying this ban, particularly with regard to exceptions? There will be children who still need to have a phone in school for a variety of different reasons—for example, because they are young carers or because they rely on phone-enabled software for support with a disability or special educational need. At the Education Committee yesterday, one of our witnesses made an important point about how exceptions are to be treated when implementing a ban, which was that care needs to be taken regarding how the wider issues in the classroom are managed for children who have an exceptional need for a phone. Those issues include who gets to use the phone, what apps are allowed to be on that phone, and how children are kept safe from bullying in this context.
Sam Carling
My hon. Friend is citing some shocking evidence, and I will be sure to listen to the Committee session later. On her comments about Meta not believing that its platforms are addictive, does she agree that the problem goes more broadly than just children? Lots of adults have issues with social media addiction, and a social media ban for children would not necessarily solve that. We need to look at broader solutions.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Before the hon. Member gets to her feet, I remind her that we have to conclude at 4.16 and I need to get five or six more Members in to contribute. I hope that she will be coming to a conclusion soonish.
Helen Hayes
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. One of the reasons for the incredulity among those listening to the evidence yesterday was precisely that we recognise the addictive nature of social media. Frankly, the discussion yesterday felt like how a discussion about tobacco might have felt in the 1940s. The harm is so evident as to be undeniable, but the companies responsible for it continue to argue that the harm is minimal or non-existent and that anything in moderation is fine.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
To enable all Back Benchers to get in, there will be a speaking limit of three minutes. We now come to the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has kindly said that she will speak for less than five minutes.
Sir Roger Gale
I do understand what the hon. Lady is saying. Those cases are very few and far between, and there can always be exceptions, where they are medically necessary. I do not believe that is a problem. I am saying to the Minister that we have an opportunity today to legislate. Do not prevaricate; do it!
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Patience is a virtue, and as we have made up time, the final Back-Bench speaker will get five minutes. I call Damian Hinds.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to have heard the last few speeches, which made very important points, but even with five minutes, time is still short for me. I will speak briefly about a couple of aspects of social media and mobile phones.
On social media, let us get on with it. We have had this issue come back from the Lords multiple times, and we can do this. There is a glaring logical flaw at the heart of the Government’s argument for not taking action—we have also heard it from a bunch of Labour MPs today—which is, “We can’t do this one thing, because there are some other things we could do as well.” That just does not hold water. All those other things—around gaming, other types of applications, chatbots, addictive features and so on—could be additive to a ban on social media for children under the age of 16. They would still, by the way, be very relevant to child safety. I remind the House that our duty to children extends to those aged up to 18, as per the Children Act 1989 and our commitments to the United Nations.
There are issues to resolve about a ban—exactly where the lines should be drawn; exactly what is in and what is out—and yes, of course, the Government have to consult on those issues, but they do not need to consult further on the principle of whether the country and the House of Commons want a ban on young people under the age of 16 accessing social media, a conclusion that so many other countries are also coming to.
On mobile phones, throughout the progress of the Bill, I have found a remarkable contrast. The Government said for so long that they would not ban phones in schools because there should be some discretion for headteachers, but they are going to tell them precisely how many items of branded school uniform they are allowed to specify, and will tell them that in secondary schools that could include a tie, but in primary schools, for some bizarre reason, it cannot.
I am pleased that the Government have partly seen the light. The Minister, whom we all like and respect, said last week that the problem had already been solved—and presumably it has now been re-solved, as the Government have come back to the issue—but I have to say that that is not what children say. What children tell us, both informally and when they are answering surveys about the actual use of mobile phones in schools, is how often lessons get interrupted, teachers are filmed, and bullying and other stuff happens at break times and lunchtimes. We need to act. Of course, there can be individual exceptions for those using assistive and adaptive technology, for young carers, and for others, but the one exception that we must not have is on the type of ban.
The critical question is about having a policy of “not seen, not heard”. Every school in the country, pretty much, already has at least that, but I am afraid that it is not effective as a ban. If you have this thing in your pocket, or in your bag at your foot, it is still there, and you feel its presence. If it vibrates, you might actually feel it, physically; but even if you do not, you feel that compulsion towards it. The only way to make a school truly free of the scourge of mobile phones is to have them away from the child. The “not seen, not heard” approach does not work.
The main argument for saying that we have to allow “not seen, not heard” is about cost. I understand that. Pouches, which a couple of colleagues have mentioned, do have a cost, but we do not have to do pouches. There are other ways of doing this. I mentioned the Petersfield school in my constituency, which has a phones-away-from-children ban, and which uses a simple device—a plastic box that can be purchased in most large-format Swedish retailers. That is locked away in a cupboard, along with a number of other boxes, until the end of the day. The biggest cost has been the foam inserts, with numbered slots in which each child puts their phone, but the sum total cost is very reasonable.
I want to answer the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), who is no longer with us, so to speak. He asked why had we not taken this measure when we were in government. That is a perfectly reasonable question. There are two reasons: first, the issue has become more acute; and, secondly, the attitude of headteachers. It has changed. We have gone from headteachers and their representative bodies saying, “The best way for you to support me in this school is not to impose a national ban,” to them saying the exact opposite—that the best way to support schools and headteachers is to have a ban written into law.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I now suspend the House in accordance with the motion that we have just agreed. I will arrange for the Division bells to ring shortly before the sitting resumes.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 weeks, 1 day ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that Lords amendment 38 and 105 engage the Commons’ financial privilege. If either of those Lords amendments are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving the Commons’ financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 9
Sibling contact with children in care
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Olivia Bailey)
I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 17B.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Government motions:
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 38, but does not insist on its Amendments 38A to 38D and proposes Amendments (a) to (f) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
That this House disagrees with the Lords in their Amendment 41B.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 102, but proposes Amendments (a) to (e) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
That this House insists on its disagreement with the Lords in their Amendment 106, but proposes Amendments (a) to (c) to the Bill in lieu of the Lords Amendment.
That this House agrees with Lords amendment 105B.
Olivia Bailey
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will cut the cost of sending children to school, drive high and rising standards in our schools, and is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation. This Labour Government are ambitious for every single child in this country. This Bill will lift over 100,000 children out of poverty through our expansion of free school meals, deliver breakfast clubs in every primary school in England, and make our children safer, both in and out of school, online and offline.
Today I ask the House to reaffirm its support for this landmark legislation as we move through the latest round of parliamentary ping-pong. We have listened carefully to the concerns that have been raised, both in the Commons and the Lords. In response, we are offering, where appropriate, amendments in lieu. I will speak first to the two Government amendments made in the House of Lords.
Government amendment 17B, on sibling contact, strengthens the right of children in care to maintain contact with their siblings. It is a travesty that children in care can end up losing contact with their brothers and sisters, and we want that to change. I particularly acknowledge my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Emma Lewell), who has been campaigning for this measure for a long time and deserves huge credit. I also thank others who have campaigned on the issue, including Baroness Tyler of Enfield, for their continued championing of this hugely important topic.
SEND Provision and Reform
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 weeks, 3 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ashley Dalton
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and his kind words, and I agree that we cannot simply say that there is overdiagnosis. It has been said previously that there were not as many people with SEND before; the reality is that we do not know that, because for many years, SEND simply went unnoticed. People were not diagnosed, and were simply written off as naughty or backward. We must recognise how important these children are and how much support they need.
Dozens of parents in West Lancashire have contacted me to request that I come to the Chamber today to protect the rights they have under current legislation to enforceable provision based on a child’s particular needs. We all know the deficiencies that exist in the current EHCP system, but we must make sure that we listen to SEND parents. I know that this Government are committed to ensuring that these changes make life easier for SEND children and their families, not harder.
Twice, I have met a constituent who has a son with severe and complex special needs—he is nonverbal and has sensory challenges. Even when her son was offered a place at a special school, the local authority did not accept that place, despite it being cheaper than the local authority provision. It ignored recommendations and assessments, and my constituent’s son was out of education for seven months. My constituent had to use the rights that exist in current legislation to fight for the most basic right—for her son to have an education—and the issue was only resolved because of his legal right to legal enforceability and the tribunal power to name a school. Had that not been the case, her son might still not be in education. My constituent agrees with the Government that the system we inherited is not working, and she is not asking us to scrap these reforms, but we must ensure that the changes we are making to an unfair system support SEND children and their families as much as we possibly can.
Last year, Reform took control of Lancashire county council, the authority that makes decisions about SEND provision for my constituency. It is obvious that, despite claiming that it would tackle the issue, Reform has demonstrated no interest in it. Its national party does not care—as has already been pointed out, not a single one of its Members is present for this evening’s debate. Reform-led Lancashire county council has failed to provide tailored support for children in my constituency, and has failed to support families in my constituency who are fighting tooth and nail for their children to have the same opportunities that the rest of us rightly expect as standard. It would be an abdication of my duty to represent my constituents if I did not seek to give parents every tool in the box to defend the right of their children to a decent education, in the face of a local authority whose leadership turns its gaze away and plugs its ears.
I am proud that this Government are tackling this issue in a constructive way—parents have waited for these changes for far too long. As part of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s commitment to give every child the best possible start in life, I would be grateful if the Minister gave a clear reassurance today that the legal right to an EHCP or similar for those who need it will remain, and that the ability of families to enforce provision will not be weakened by reforms.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
The speaking limit is now three minutes, and it is highly unlikely that most people will get in. I call Andrew George.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Interventions do not allow other colleagues to speak. I call Chris Coghlan.
Charlotte Cane
I agree; we must not set things up in competition.
I would like to ask the Minister three questions. First, what is she going to do to make sure that every school in every area has the specialist resources it needs to deliver for its children? How is she going to make sure that rural areas such as mine in Ely and East Cambridgeshire have access to those resources for all schools and all children? It takes longer and therefore it costs more to get those across the area. What is she going to put in place to make sure that parents retain the right to fight for and enforce their children’s rights?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I did not want to intervene, because I could see that the Member was going to speak very briefly, but interventions are not helping other Members in the Chamber.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) on securing this debate. We have heard varying views on the question of demand, with some people saying that it has not gone up at all and that others saying it has. I have relied on the House of Commons Library to tell me that since 2015 demand for EHCPs has ballooned by 140% and that in 2025 there were 13 times more people waiting for an autism assessment than there were in 2019.
Hon. Members across the House have described very effectively the extraordinary diagnosis of a system that has been unable to meet demand, so I will not replay the tape. The 98% tribunal success rate is symptomatic of that, and it is pretty shocking. It shows that the system is having to be fought against systemically, which is deeply worrying. Members across the House have replayed case studies from their own inboxes, but I do not have time to go into the cases of child Y, child L, child F, child D and the many others, all of whom have finally come to their Member of Parliament because they could see no way through and because the computer had said no. It has come to that, for them, but that should not be the case.
In the time remaining, I want to take a strategic approach and look upstream. In March last year, the Secretary of State for Health said that he was sold on the idea that overdiagnosis was at the root cause of mental health illness. On 1 June, I asked the Secretary of State for Education whether any work was being done between her Department and the Health Department on what was causing the increased demand on the special educational needs system. She said that she was very concerned indeed about that. I then waited until 1 December before asking what she and the Health Secretary had done in the intervening seven months. I think it was the Minister for School Standards who kindly said that she was very concerned about it. Five days later, the Health Secretary announced that there was going to be a six-month study into the causes of the increase in demand on the special educational needs system, and that it would report in the summer. I do not think anyone is covering themselves in glory here. As a nation, we need to increase our understanding of this phenomenon that we are experiencing—
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We have run out of time for Back-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
9.35 pm
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) for introducing this debate. It is clear from the passionate contributions we have heard that the problems are widespread and the SEND system is completely broken. We have all heard the anguish of parents, and we have read the dreadful stories of desperate children who have lost their lives because of failures in this system.
In that context, I welcome the Government’s recent White Paper as an important step in the right direction. We have to address the growing need and, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) said so passionately, we cannot limit provision because there is too much need. The earlier we identify need and start addressing it, the better the outcomes will be for children, parents, families and society as a whole.
We have had to wait for this White Paper, but putting the delays to one side, we are here now and the Liberal Democrats welcome the central focus on inclusion through improving support in mainstream settings. If children with SEND can attend a local school, they can stay connected with their friends and be part of their local community, and their family can engage better with their school. Inclusion bases are welcome, and they include the one being opened at King Edward VI community college in my constituency, with a focus on bringing children back into school after dropping out, following a difficult transition into year 7, and helping them to become part of the school community again. This model has good potential to succeed if properly resourced. However, many questions remain about funding, children’s rights and staffing.
On funding, the £4 billion pledge to accompany the upcoming reforms, plus capital spending and the council debt write-off, are welcome, but we are worried that the Government are holding councils to ransom by tying this debt relief to restrictions on special school expansion. The Government must also provide clarity on where the new funding, including the council deficit write-off, is coming from. The Liberal Democrats are very concerned that other areas of the wider schools budget may be cut, even though there is nothing left to give. The Government have introduced some good policies but have failed to fully fund them, including breakfast clubs, the expansion of free school meals, even teacher pay rises, and, today, the healthy school standards. That will be more expensive, so will it be fully funded for schools?
Caroline Voaden
I am sorry, but I do not have enough time.
Schools and local authorities are already at breaking point and are now being asked to deliver even more, including running two SEND systems in parallel during the transition period.
On parental rights, parents have expressed deep concern about changes to the tribunal system. Removing power from SEND tribunals to direct a local authority to name a specific setting will give parents even less opportunity to choose a setting that suits their child. Given that currently 99% of tribunal cases are won by families against the local authority, how can we trust that local authorities will suddenly start getting it right under the new system?
The Liberal Democrats are clear that stripping back parents’ ability to challenge the system is unacceptable. The anxiety of parents is understandable. Many are worried that their child will lose existing support or not receive the support they need under the new system. Will the Minister guarantee that legal rights will not be stripped away, that settled placements will not be disrupted, and that accountability, including meaningful routes of appeal, will remain strong and effective? It is absolutely vital that children and families remain at the heart of these reforms and retain the key rights that they have.
On staffing, we welcome the Experts at Hand service to embed specialists such as speech and language therapists and educational psychologists into mainstream schools, but we need a credible workforce plan to see how the Government are going to recruit and train all the staff needed and encourage trained specialists back into the profession. I am concerned about the need for more learning support staff—the people who are absolutely crucial to delivering these reforms and ensuring that mainstream inclusion works effectively. Schools are being forced to cut learning support staff due to the financial pressures they are facing, but a SEND system focused on inclusion simply cannot be implemented without them, so I would like to hear further detail from the Minister about how the Government believe schools can deliver an inclusive approach for all children without funding more support staff.
Away from budgets and staffing, there are other changes that we can make in the way that we run our schools that would make them accessible for all children. Curriculum reform is vital to inclusion. Learning how to express and process emotion through music, drama, creative arts, sport and outdoor play is vital not just for children’s mental health, but for their emotional development, and it simply must be given more space. We believe that the current direction of travel is the right one, but all these reforms must be fully funded, fully staffed and fully consulted upon with those who will be impacted most by the changes—the parents and the children with SEND who are so often not heard.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Vince, you have just stumbled into the Chamber—I don’t think so.
Saqib Bhatti
I will take your lead, Madam Deputy Speaker.
There is very little detail in the White Paper around deliverability. That concern has been raised to me by a number of council leaders, headteachers and parents. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Government’s own independent watchdog, explicitly says that the impact of reform on underlying costs remains “uncertain”. It is for the Minister to provide that certainty, but the OBR is not convinced that the reforms will close the funding gap. When the Labour party was in opposition, it had 14 years to think about what it wanted to do, so I hope that the Minister can provide some of those answers today.
The issue of timelines was raised during the debate. We all agree that the reforms are urgently needed, but full implementation is not expected until 2028-29 at the earliest. Changes to EHCPs will not begin until around September 2030, so a child who is now six will be 10 or 11 before they and their family feel any difference from any reforms. For a family with a teenager, reform will never arrive in time. That point was made by the hon. Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law). Will the Minister tell the House, according to her analysis, how many children will have left school entirely before a single EHCP reform takes effect?
Georgia Gould
I do not have much time, so I am not going to take interventions. I want to be able to answer the points that have been put to me.
Too many children have been left without provision, and parents try to explain to their children why they are not at school alongside their friends. Too many parents are having to battle—we have heard the word “fight” time and time again in this conversation. I say to the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East (Saqib Bhatti) and to everyone else in the Chamber that I am committed to working constructively and on a cross-party basis on this issue. It is too important to not take all views into account and work together, so I really welcome opportunities to talk to individuals about the issues that have been raised in the debate. However, I will not apologise for taking longer to develop these reforms, because that time has been spent talking to thousands of parents, young people and teachers around the country to make sure their voices were embedded in what we put out for consultation. I also make no apology for taking time to transition into these reforms. As we have heard from so many Members across the Chamber, trust is low, and it is really important that we build the new system with children and families.
That does not mean, though, that we are not acting now. The investment we have been talking about is going into our communities straightaway, whether that is the £3.7 billion that we are already starting to invest in specialist places around the country or the £4 billion that we are investing in the services we have talked about today: Experts at Hand, the educational psychologists and speech and language therapists who will now be available to local schools; and the inclusive mainstream fund, which will be going directly into schools. Those are huge investments that this Government are making. The OBR made its projections before it had seen our reform plans and the huge investments we are making, including new investment going in during 2028-29, which I know the hon. Member for Meriden and Solihull East will have seen.
I agree wholeheartedly with everyone who has raised the importance of early intervention and of putting in as much support as possible as quickly as possible. So many families have told me that if support had been available much quicker, their needs would not have escalated—they would not be out of education and would not have needed to leave their local schools. We have also heard about the importance of inclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) spoke powerfully about why it is so critical that children with special educational needs and disabilities are at the heart of the education system. They have so much to offer, and every school should be an inclusive school, but that does not mean that we do not also need special schools, and the £3.7 billion of investment I have talked about will create new specialist places.
Let me turn to the points made by the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon. First and most importantly, our intention in these reforms is to improve outcomes for children. That is our guiding principle—our No. 1 outcome. The hon. Member mentioned the long waiting lists to which so many families are exposed. Addressing those waits is the point of the reforms. We are putting in place educational psychologists, speech and language therapists, and so many others, so that schools can draw on them and children can access that support without a lengthy wait or a battle for an EHCP and a diagnosis. Under our reform plans, that provision will be available as part of the mainstream system.
Critically, education, health and care plans will remain, and they will be available for children who need them. We know that too many children are forced to apply to get an EHCP because their needs are not being met in mainstream schools. The majority of children with special educational needs and disabilities in our school system do not have an EHCP, but are on the SEND register. They are the children who are often being badly let down. Our reforms will extend rights for those children, including new statutory duties on schools to develop inclusion plans and individual support plans. There will be new layers of support with targeted and targeted plus, new national standards, and new duties on teacher training. My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) spoke powerfully about the importance of teacher training, with every single teacher trained to support children with special educational needs and disabilities, so that every class is accessible.
As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes) talked expertly about the issue. We are grateful for the work of her Committee and the huge amount of time it put in to its report. I will address her points about transition and accountability within the transition. There are safeguards that I think will reassure parents: every child who is in a special school will remain in a special school, we will build the new system before anyone transitions into that new system, and somebody with an existing EHCP will move on to either an EHCP or an individual support plan, and that will be backed by the tribunal.
There were lots of questions about individual support plans and accountability. Ofsted will be looking at individual support plans and developing a new complaints process with an independent role. Importantly, if a family does not feel that their needs are being met by the mainstream system, they will still be able to request a needs assessment and that will be backed by the tribunal. There will still be access to the tribunal, and the tribunal will remain an important part of the system.
We do not want families to have to go to a tribunal, though. We want to deliver a system that works, where families’ voices are put at the heart of decision making and where accountability sits not on the shoulders of families, but that it is for us—the Department for Education, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the Government—to hold local authorities to account. I was asked why we are we going ahead with local SEND reform plans and asking councils to develop them. We are clear that councils need to deliver today for children with special educational needs and disabilities; as we have heard in the debate, there is too much failure and we are determined to hold councils to account.
We are committed to a full consultation. We welcome comments on every aspect of these proposals, and I ask everyone in this Chamber to make sure that you are holding events, talking to your constituents and pointing them towards the consultation, because this is a generational opportunity to change the system. Families have been failed for too long, and it is only by listening to them that we will get this right.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There were far too many uses of “you” and “your” throughout speeches today. Members need to check the language they use. I call Gregory Stafford to wind up.
LGBT+ History Month
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(2 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kate Osborne
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about the far right and others.
While we celebrate the trailblazers—the organisers, artists and campaigners; the nurses and carers who held hands in hospital wards when families would not visit; the friends who became family; the people who marched when it was dangerous; and the people who stood up when they were told to sit down—we also learn from their courage. We also remember that our history includes Pride marches and community groups, as well as trade union solidarity and working-class organising. One of the strongest lessons in our LGBT+ history is this: when working people stand together, we win change that reaches far beyond the workplace.
I declare an interest: I am a proud member of Unite the union. I take this opportunity to mention that, as well as LGBT History Month, this is Heart Unions Week. Trade unions are always at the heart of the fight for equality. They push employers to have policies on discrimination at work, and decades ago they brought about trans-inclusive policies. At a time when division is being weaponised, that lesson of solidarity is more important than ever.
In my beautiful Jarrow and Gateshead East constituency, I am proud of the work done by Out North East, particularly Drew Dalton and Peter Darrant, and their fantastic community work with youth groups and older LGBT people. Just last week, they opened new, bigger premises for the One Centre, the first LGBT media and business centre in the UK—and it is in my constituency. The location is a brand new LGBTQ+ inclusive space, and its facilities are incredible. When I visited, I was honoured and moved to realise that I was featured on the icons wall, alongside Bowie, and that there was a room named after me and another after the wonderful Lord Cashman from the other place. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I am proud to have led the debate at the Council of Europe, and I am pleased to say that my report on banning conversion practices passed with support from across the political spectrum and across Europe. The report contains a framework for legislation that each of the 46 countries is expected to adopt in its own Parliament. Our Government should now adopt that framework, because conversion practices do not just happen in theory; they happen to real people, in real life. They happen under the guise of “therapy”, “guidance”, “deliverance” or “counselling”. Their message is always the same: “You are broken. You are wrong. And you need to be fixed.” Well, I am here to say that I am a lesbian, and nothing about me needs to be fixed, thank you.
I am afraid that, instead of learning from the stigma and prejudice of the past, here we are marginalising, discriminating, preventing vital lifesaving healthcare and support, and excluding trans and non-binary people from sport, spaces and society. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that future MPs, Ministers and possibly Prime Ministers will stand where we are right now to dish out the kind of apologies, compensation and retribution for the wrongs of yesterday that we see happening all too often today. Why do we not save ourselves, and, most importantly, the trans community, by stepping up for them right now, instead of capitulating to a small band of very loud and well-funded bigots? Let us not make today’s discrimination tomorrow’s inquiry, public apology and compensation scheme—that is exactly where we are heading.
Let me finish with a celebration of our history. We are here today in the gayest Parliament in the world—12% of this Chamber is LGBT—and I am delighted to be serving queer joy in Parliament for all Members to hear. To the homophobes who are still just about clinging on to their prejudices, I say: I have some queer joy for you, too. It is 2026; we are still here, we have always been here, we are out and proud, and there are more of us than ever before, so just get over it already.
I am here to reaffirm my commitment to fighting for equality. As the new chair of the APPG on fertility, I will continue to fight for IVF for all. As the chair of the APPG on women’s football, I was pleased to be at the launch of the Premier League’s new “With Pride” campaign. It is great to see the rainbow flag flying across every football ground in the premier league. Football is a great unifier, and the north-east is renowned for being a hotbed of football. Perhaps that is why I loved it so much when I moved there back in 1989, and why I have never left. Football transcends borders and brings together people from diverse backgrounds. It is for everyone, so my message to the Football Association is this: let the dolls play football!
I thank the Minister for her support, for the many productive conversations that we have had, and for her work to introduce a ban on conversion practices and make LGBT hate crime an aggravated offence.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
It is a real honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne). I reiterate my congratulations on her fine work on the report on banning conversion therapy in Europe. That is greatly needed, and I hope that the Government will soon follow suit.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) and for Llanelli (Dame Nia Griffith), who are both brilliant members of the Women and Equalities Committee, for their speeches. I note that other members of the Committee are here, too. My hon. Friends called out queer icons, but let me say that they are my icons. Not only do they serve the LGBT community, but they serve our movement—thank you.
Today, we are learning about history and how to learn the lessons of the past, so I am deeply disappointed that there are not more Opposition Members here. I am not surprised that Reform Members are not here—they are unwilling to learn, come together or bring people together—but I am surprised that there are no Green, Lib Dem or SNP Members. I have to say, I am pleased that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who was sitting next to the shadow Minister, has left his place. He did not listen with respect to the brilliant opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East. Instead, he rolled his eyes. I feel that, although we try to bring everybody together—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Member possibly remembers and knows that when we refer to other Members of the House, we let them know in advance. Has she had time to do that?
Sarah Owen
I shall be doing so. I had expected the hon. Member to stay and perhaps learn from the subsequent speeches. Perhaps he could come back and learn a bit more.
In every year that I have spoken in this debate, it seems that the LGBTQ+ community has had a tougher year than the one before. That is sadly as true today as it was last year. The mainstream has moved dangerously further right, to focus not on what brings people together but on what tears people apart. That is not leadership. The politics of the right is one of fear—it is cowardly. True strength is shown in the ability to learn, understand and lead people to a better future. Progress is not inevitable; we will have to fight for it. I say to the LGBTQ+ community: “You are not alone in that fight.”
I would understand why many people feel alone right now, however. Between March 2024 and March 2025, more than 18,000 hate crimes were motivated by sexual orientation alone, and there were more than 3,000 trans-related hate crimes. Although 2024 saw a slight dip in reported hate crimes, there has still been a 44% increase over the past five years, and horrifyingly, there has been an 88% increase in hate crimes against trans people in that time.
Those horrifying statistics make it clear that some elements of the public are taking their lead from the current political discourse. Reform’s candidate in Gorton and Denton wants tax cuts for people who have children, which is deeply offensive to not only people like me, who have struggled to have a child, but to many LGBTQ+ people as well. We know that Reform ultimately does not want LGBT people to have children. Reform’s leader has gone on record with his belief that children are better off brought up in heterosexual households, rather than just with parents who love them. They are not hiding how they feel; they are saying it with their full chest, and they are reaping the benefits of a culture war where everyone is a casualty apart from them—a culture war that none of us sees an end to without serious leadership.
We know that when they are done with trans people, they will go after the LGB part of the community, and I wonder how long it will be before Reform and some elements of the Conservative party call for an end to same-sex couples being allowed to adopt. What was unthinkable years ago is not just being muttered quietly under their breath any more; it is now a full-throated attack under the cynical guise of “safety”—all a smoke- screen for the abuse and real danger that women and children face.
I wish I could say that this toxicity only exists in the right-wing parties, but sadly not. I cannot express how disappointed I was when my own party took the decision to exclude trans women members from our women’s conference. It has led me to my decision, which is, sadly, not to attend women’s conference for the first time in a very long time. It used to be one of my favourite parts of the conference season—a place for inclusivity and sensible discussion; I have even chaired some of the debates, which are so memorable in my mind—but if all women cannot go, neither will I. I have attended every party conference and many trade union conferences for nearly 20 years—yes, I am that old—and my safety was never put at risk from trans women, trans men or the LGBTQ+ community, but it was by cis men with power. These men are unaccountable to anyone—something that many are slowly cottoning on to in this place and others.
Accountability is incredibly important—it matters—so where is it? Where is it for the people who consistently trade off one person’s rights for another’s, only to serve their own agenda? Does the Minister believe the Equality and Human Rights Commission is up to the challenge of this ever more toxic environment? Is it resourced properly? I hope it is, because we need a defender of all our rights. Otherwise, as we watch America tear itself apart, I fear we are just one sneeze away from catching the disease of state-sanctioned hatred that sees leaders openly attack gay people, disabled people and ethnic minority people. We can do so much better than that.
There are many questions for the Minister, but I want to pose one that has already been raised: when will we see the ban on conversion therapy? As many young trans people wait for the puberty blocker trials to go ahead, what support is being given to them and their families in this time of uncertainty? I know our Labour Government are so much better than what we are seeing overseas right now, and I know the British public are so much better than to want what they are seeing overseas right now, but I also know that we can do better. Our country is not just tolerant but at its best when we celebrate difference, learn from one another and come together to celebrate the brilliant country we are. That is the country I want back.
Early Education and Childcare
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(7 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)
With permission, I will make a statement to update the House on this Government’s vital work to give every child the best start in life.
Within months of taking office we published our plan for change, a promise to improve the lives of working people and break down barriers to opportunity for people in this country. That plan set a target that a record proportion of children will start school ready to learn. Why? Because the foundations of the stronger society that we want to build must be laid down from the very beginning of children’s lives. In July, we published our “Giving every child the best start in life” strategy, setting out how we will achieve that target, and the Government’s vision for the future of the early education and childcare sector.
We have heard the calls of families and providers. Education begins long before primary school, and this step change will give our children the focus and priorities that they deserve during their critical early years. We will help our youngest children by increasing the availability of childcare, improving the quality of early education and boosting support for families, building on the best of Sure Start by rolling out Best Start family hubs in every local authority in England. Taken together, those three approaches will make the difference to families and set up children for success in education and in life. It is yet another example of this Government working, with promises made, and promises kept.
We promised to make childcare more affordable for parents and more accessible across the country. Today we are delivering on that promise, with hundreds of thousands of parents now getting 30 hours of funded childcare each week, from when their child turns nine months until they start school. For too long, families have struggled to get childcare places that match their individual needs, and provision has been either unavailable or unaffordable. The least well-off parts of our country often have far fewer childcare places per person than the most affluent, but wide provision of high-quality childcare and early education makes a huge difference to many lives. It helps parents by giving them the flexibility to balance work and family life, and it helps businesses and the economy by helping parents return to work and growing the childcare sector and employment.
This marks a fundamental shift in how we support families right from the start: reducing costs, increasing choice, and helping parents to balance work with family. Those making full use of the offer will save, on average, around £7,500 a year. For Victoria in Gloucester, the 30 hours is helping her to balance being a single mother and an educator. She works five days a week, and the extended Government-funded childcare hours will save her around £600 a month. They also mean that she can continue her career. As Victoria says:
“This roll-out is a significant step forward in women’s rights and workplace participation.”
We are on track to reach over half a million children who will benefit from the scheme this term, already exceeding initial estimates for delivery, and the roll-out is a major step forward in our ambition to give every child the best start in life. We know that that ambition is shared by our brilliant and dedicated early years and childminder staff who work hard day in, day out to make it possible for families. Private, voluntary and independent nurseries, as well as childminders, have helped the Government to reach this important milestone, and they have grown their capacity in response to increased demand for childcare places. More providers are delivering the entitlements, with the number up by 5,800 private providers.
The sector plays a vital role in supporting families and nurturing young children, so we must ensure that its provision is available where it is most needed. That is why we are also delivering tens of thousands more childcare places via new and expanded school-based nurseries. Schools have reported that 110 nurseries from phase 1 of the programme opened this week at the start of term, and they are providing 2,500 places for families in parts of the country where provision is needed. Those nurseries join a diverse childcare market that offers families different choices to meet their needs. School-based nurseries can strengthen ties between parents and schools, and ease the transition into reception. For families with children of different ages, they offer easier drop-offs and pick-ups. School-based nurseries also play a key role in inclusion by caring for proportionally more young children with special educational needs and operating in disadvantaged areas. We have already funded around 300 new and expanded school-based nurseries, and thanks to the hard work of schools, they are on track to deliver up to 6,000 new nursery places.
We are laying the foundations of success for tens of thousands of young children, and today I am proud to tell the House that we are launching phase 2 of the school-based nurseries programme. Backed by £45 million, it will deliver 300 more new or expanded school-based nurseries. It will focus on disadvantaged areas where places are needed, and where they can make a big impact. We will build on the success of the first phase of the programme, and as before, schools can apply to establish new nurseries in partnership with private, voluntary and independent providers and childminders.
Last week I had the pleasure of visiting Cinnamon Brow Church of England primary school in Warrington. It had collaborated with an existing local private nursery to refurbish an unused mobile unit, creating a new nursery on the school site. I was so pleased and impressed by the partnership between everyone involved. It is a great example of how schools can work with established nurseries to expand childcare provision and break down barriers to opportunity.
The programme is already making a difference to families in 66 local authorities, and we are looking ahead to further grow provision for future generations. Phase 3 of the school-based nurseries programme will launch in early 2026, and will focus on meeting the long-term needs of local communities. Local authorities will be invited to develop multi-year funding proposals, in collaboration with schools and childcare providers. Backed by over £400 million, the programme will deliver on our manifesto commitment to parents of more places in school-based nurseries, and more affordable childcare for parents.
Families know that childcare needs do not stop when children start school. That is why we recently extended the holiday activities and food programme, investing over £600 million in young people’s futures. The programme provides nutritious meals and enriching activities for children from lower-income households, it helps to close the development gap between those children and their peers, and it eases the financial pressure on parents during the school holidays. The holiday activities and food programme has already reached half a million children in the past year, and during that time it has saved families over £300 each. It is another part of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity, so that every child can get the best start in life.
Our “best start in life” strategy sets out how we will support this country’s children to thrive as they grow up. Alongside the £9 billion that this Government will be investing in early years, we will spend nearly £1.5 billion over the next three years to strengthen the childcare sector and revitalise family services. By expanding funded childcare and growing provision where it is needed via school-based nurseries, more children will arrive in reception ready to learn and succeed in education. The measures I have set out today reflect this Government’s deep commitment to ensuring that every family can access high-quality childcare and early education, and that all children can reach a good level of development and start school ready to learn. That will help families to save money, earn more and give children the best possible start in life. I commend this statement to the House.
Stephen Morgan
I start by welcoming the shadow Minister to his place on the Opposition Front Bench, but it is shocking that even now the Conservatives cannot bring themselves to recognise the significance of Labour’s childcare expansion, nor can they celebrate the new school-based nurseries that make more affordable childcare places available across the country. Despite the Conservatives’ scaremongering, nine in 10 parents have one of their first choice childcare places. This Labour Government inherited a pledge without a plan but, once again, we are delivering for families, giving parents more choice and setting children up with the best start in life.
The people of this country are well aware of what happens when Conservative Members make pledges ahead of elections, such as 40 new hospitals or levelling up, and of the reality that Liz Truss crashed pensions and mortgages. What did Conservative Members do? They cheered her on. Let me spell it out to them and tell them a truth that the British public were keen to ensure that the Conservatives heard at the election last year: when they will not even take the blame for the things that they did, they certainly will not get the credit for the things that they did not do. Over 14 years, they dismantled the support for families. More than 1,000 Sure Start centres, which boosted early learning, provided healthcare and built communities, were ripped away from communities across our country. It is no wonder that the Conservatives do not want to admit that what we are rebuilding, they destroyed.
This Government are delivering on our promise of change: thousands of new nursery places, expanded childcare hours, Best Start breakfast clubs in every primary school across our country and support throughout the school holidays. Labour is delivering on our promises to parents. We are saving families thousands of pounds, giving parents work choices and improving children’s life chances. That is what the country expects and that is what I am proud this Labour Government are delivering.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister’s statement: the expansion of funded childcare hours this week; the future expansion of school-based nurseries; and confirmation of a further three years of funding for the holiday activities and food programme.
My Committee is today launching an inquiry on the early years. We will examine in detail the Government’s work in this area, looking at the sustainability of the workforce, families’ access to services across the country and the quality of outcomes for children. May I therefore ask the Minister what additional work he believes is needed to ensure that children in families who are not in work—who often have the most to gain from high-quality early years education—are not left behind by the expansion of funded hours for working families? How confident is he that the significant problems in recruitment and retention of early years practitioners will be addressed to secure the workforce needed to deliver on the Government’s commitments?
Finally, will the Minister join me in paying tribute to everyone in my constituency and across the country who has spent the past six weeks running holiday activities and food programmes? I know they are utterly exhausted this week, but they should know that their hard work has helped to tackle poverty and disadvantage, and to provide vital opportunities that keep children and young people safe and help them to thrive.
Stephen Morgan
The Chair of the Select Committee is a real champion for maintained nurseries across the country, and I know that she shares the Government’s vision of ensuring that every child gets the best start in life and has the chance to succeed and thrive. As she knows, we set out our vision for early education in our landmark strategy in July. I look forward to receiving formal notice of her Committee’s inquiry and to working with her and the Committee in a constructive manner, putting the needs of children and young people first. I pay tribute to all those who worked over the summer to deliver for children and young people. As a former playworker, I see the huge value of the HAF programme. I commend all those who work so hard over the summer holidays.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
High-quality early years education is the best possible investment we can make in our future. Whether we are serious about tackling the SEND crisis or the attainment gap, or are simply concerned to give every child the best start in life, proper investment in the early years is one of the strongest levers we have.
We all know that for far too long the previous Conservative Government neglected the early years sector, leaving a legacy of sky-high fees and childcare deserts in their wake, particularly in disadvantaged areas. We Liberal Democrats therefore welcome the Government’s announcement of more school-based nurseries, alongside the extension of funded childcare hours—but let us not forget the deep problems facing the private and voluntary sector. Without addressing the massive financial strain on those nurseries and childcare providers, we can never hope to deliver for families. Their survival is absolutely central to supporting families up and down the country to thrive.
The Government’s jobs tax, I am afraid, has only added fuel to the fire. The financial pressures of underfunded hours, the national insurance contributions rise, and inflation have left many providers on the brink. Indeed, some nurseries are already telling parents that they may be unable to sign the new contract due to financial pressures. Earlier this week, in a letter published by the Early Years Alliance, a survey of more than 800 providers found that 44% could not meet demand this September, while one in six has already cut funded places. That is coupled with a crisis in recruitment and training of staff in the sector; if the providers and the staff are not there, how can the Minister expect his expansion to deliver for parents up and down the country?
Will the Minister commit to urgently reviewing the funding rates, so that they reflect the real cost of delivering high-quality early education? At the same time, will he work with his colleagues in the Department for Business and Trade to ensure that we extend and fully fund parental rights so that families up and down the country have a real choice between whether they want to stay at home for a longer period in the early months, or go out to work full time?
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
Listening to the Conservative Front Bench spokesperson, one would think that everything was fine and rosy in education before the previous election, and that everything would have been fine if only the Conservatives had been given one more chance. Compare and contrast that with what we have delivered in our first year in Government: 30 hours of free childcare, actually funded; free breakfast clubs; cheaper school uniforms on the way; best start family hubs; and of course—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Mr Sewards, do you have an actual question? If so, go for it!
Mark Sewards
Will the Minister join me in encouraging parents in my constituency of Leeds South West and Morley to take advantage of everything this Government have done to make the lives of parents and children easier?
Giving Every Child the Best Start in Life
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(9 months, 2 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan
We are obviously working through the detail of our commitments as I speak, but I will certainly take his point back to the Department—I know that officials are working very closely with colleagues in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. What is really powerful is the fact that we will roll out family hubs to every local authority in the country to make sure that they make a real difference to every child’s life.
We are investing over £500 million to expand Best Start family hubs to every local authority in England, ensuring that wherever they live, families can access joined-up, high-quality support from pregnancy through to the early years. As part of this investment, we are providing dedicated funding to deliver evidence-based support for the home learning environment, with a particular focus on disadvantaged families and the quality of parent-child relationships. We want to support parents to create rich and nurturing home environments by encouraging them to chat, play and read more with their children, because we know that those everyday interactions are the building blocks of early development.
In order to help meet our ambition for 75% of children to achieve a good level of development by the age of five, we will fund more evidence-based parenting and home learning programmes so that more families can access those services before their children start school. That will be supported by a new national Best Start digital service, linked to “My Children” on the NHS app, which will bring together the trusted advice and guidance that all parents need in one place, and link families to their local services.
The Labour Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity, and the early years are where we do that most powerfully. Our ambition is clear: to make early years education the best it can be for children in all settings. This is the start of a decade of national renewal for families and the support that they receive. We will go further and faster to ensure that every child has the best start in life and the chance to achieve and to thrive.
Iqbal Mohamed (Dewsbury and Batley) (Ind)
I thank the shadow Secretary of State for giving way—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I should say that the hon. Member is a shadow Minister, before you give him with a promotion.
Iqbal Mohamed
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask the shadow Minister how his party would fund the investments in early years proposed by the new Government?
Neil O’Brien
I am very grateful to be put right back in my box by Madam Deputy Speaker, and rightly so.
I would not fund that by increasing taxes on low income workers by £25 billion. That means that someone who is earning £13,000 a year loses £500. It means someone earning £9,000 a year is losing 5% of their income. Ministers like to talk about the distributional impact of things like breakfast clubs and so on—they say 100,000 kids will be lifted out of poverty by something they are doing—but they will not produce any poverty analysis or any distributional analysis of the £25 billion. They are happy to talk endlessly about the distributional impacts of tiny measures, but not the £25 billion takeaway from low income working people in this country. I think it is astonishing—and I think a lot of Labour MPs will regret it later—that this is the way they have chosen to raise all this money.
Let me ask a few specific questions while we are here. The Department for Education has confirmed to the specialist media that it does not hold any information on the number of children who will lose entitlement to free school meals as a result of the end of the universal credit transitional protection, yet it claims to be confident that it knows that the changes it is making will reduce child poverty by 100,000. How can the Department not know how many kids are going to be on free school meals yet be confident that it will have a positive effect? I ask the Minister to answer the question very simply: what proportion of pupils will be eligible for free school meals this year and in all future years across the forecast? How much will we be spending in real terms in each of those years? I like lots of things about the “best start in life” programme—it is a continuation of our family hubs programme—and I wonder whether the Minister could set out exactly how much will be spent on that programme in the ’26-27, ’27-28 and ’28-29 financial years. It is not a bad programme at all and we do not dislike it at all; the only thing that is not right is to pretend it is a completely new thing, when in fact it is a continuity of something that already existed.
Something that is new that Ministers promised was two weeks of work experience for every child at secondary school. Can the Minister tell me how that pledge is going? It was made by the Prime Minister and was the big highlight of his ’21 conference speech. How many schools currently offer two weeks of work experience each year?
Finally, I have a question of principle really. The Minister quite rightly talked about SEND, and we had an important report from the Education Policy Institute this morning about the overlap between SEND and school achievement, and the Government have said two things. We heard from a Health Minister that the Government want to see a smaller proportion of children in special schools, and we have heard from the Minister’s adviser on SEND that she thinks that they are having a conversation at the moment about not having education, health and care plans for children outside special schools, which covers about 300,000 children at the moment—60% of all children with an EHCP.
Those are huge changes, but is it not the case that those two policy reforms are potentially in tension? If we tell people that they cannot get an EHCP outside a special school, more parents will want to go to the special school. Ministers have talked about there always being some kind of legal right to support for special needs, but what does that mean: if the support is not being delivered by an EHCP, how will it be delivered? I ask these questions because a lot of special needs parents are worried about that; they are concerned about what the Government are planning. Maybe they are wrong and maybe the Government have a brilliant plan on all this, and we are not against reform, but at the moment, there are big questions about the ideas that are now sloshing around in the public domain, worrying people. I encourage Ministers to move quickly to certainty on these questions so that people’s minds could be put at ease.
To conclude, we are all in favour of giving each child the best start in life. We have a proud record, we made great progress, and we wish all the Government all the best, but we worry that they are too often missing the wood for the trees.
Helen Hayes
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention, and it is devastating to hear about those disparities across the country. Recently, I was at a secondary school in a very deprived area of my constituency, and a teacher told me that she noticed at an event for those from across the whole of her academy trust that her children were smaller than children who went to schools in more affluent areas of the country. That is an intolerable disgrace.
We expect the Government’s child poverty strategy to be ambitious and far reaching, and if it is to do so, it must have clear targets and there must be clear accountability in the strategy. I look forward to its publication, and my Committee, along with the Work and Pensions Committee, will play our part in scrutinising that important piece of work.
I am heartened to see this Government putting children and young people at the heart of their priorities after 14 years during which they were an afterthought. There is much more to do, and my Committee will continue to play our part by scrutinising the Government and making evidence-based recommendations. I want to see a clear vision for children and young people with real ambition for every child, and a plan for all parts of our education and care system, so that we can start to see the promise, in this Government’s agenda, of transformed lives and life chances being delivered in every part of our country.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Mr Jogee, are you now finally comfortable in the Chamber? Before, you wanted to swap. [Interruption.] Marvellous. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Free School Meals
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(10 months, 3 weeks ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Stephen Morgan
I cannot believe that I did not hear the Opposition spokesperson welcome our announcement. It is a shame that when the Conservatives were in government tackling child poverty was not considered a priority. I feel a little sorry for the spokesperson, who claims to care about education, given that his only policy is to give private schools a tax break. Indeed, on the Conservatives’ watch, child poverty grew to record highs and they wore the increasing numbers in child poverty as a badge of honour. Frankly, that is shameful.
This increase in free school meals is fully funded, and that is possible thanks to the difficult decisions that this Government and the Chancellor have had to take to get the economy growing and put the public finances back on a stable footing. I am excited to hear the Chancellor set out more details next week. That is despite the mess we inherited from the Conservatives. Why has the spokesperson not taken the opportunity today to say sorry for his Government’s shameful record on child poverty? He has nothing to say on education for our country. Unlike them, we will not sit by and watch more children fall into poverty. Unlike them, we are not offering a tax break for private schools. We are delivering positive change for our country. We are giving children back the opportunity to achieve and thrive. With this announcement, we are ensuring that every child, no matter what their background, gets the best start in life. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call the Chair of the Education Committee.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the expansion of the free school meals entitlement. It is an evidence-based approach for which many of us have campaigned for a long time. It will help to close the disadvantage gap in our schools, tackling child poverty, benefiting children’s health and supporting children to learn.
I hope the Government will agree that every child who is eligible for this expanded entitlement should be able to receive that entitlement. Whether or not children get a free school meal to which they are entitled should not depend on somebody else making an application for them through a complicated process. The Government know which families are in receipt of universal credit, so is the Minister considering auto-enrolment for this expanded entitlement? That would be easier to achieve than auto-enrolment under the previous entitlement, and every child really should be able to benefit.
Can I seek the Minister’s assurance that this very positive announcement is not an indication that other measures to reduce child poverty, such as scrapping the two-child cap, have been taken off the table?
Finally, as a London MP and a former Southwark councillor who was very proud to be part of a council that introduced universal free school meals in 2010—we have seen the benefit of that policy, and I am proud we have a Mayor who is funding universal free school meals for all primary schoolchildren in London—can I ask for confirmation that London will also receive the funding for this expanded entitlement, so it can be put to the benefit of further reducing child poverty in London?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend, the Select Committee Chair, for her constructive comments and for welcoming today’s announcement. Making all children in households claiming universal credit eligible for free school meals makes it straightforward for parents to know whether they are eligible. We are supporting that by taking forward a programme of work, including improvements to our own systems, which will make applying for free schools meals easier than it ever has been. As I mentioned in my statement, our proposals are fully funded. More broadly, we will set out more details in the forthcoming child poverty strategy around a number of the other measures she describes.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
I, too, thank the Minister for advance sight of the statement.
I warmly welcome this announcement, which will make such a difference to the lives of children up and down the country. We know the impact that free school meals can have. A hot, healthy meal in the middle of the day helps children to learn, concentrate and thrive. Making sure a child does not go hungry in school can truly change their life. That is why Liberal Democrats have for so long championed free school meals. That is why we have long called on successive Governments to take this step. That is why this policy was in our election manifesto last year. I am delighted that, even though it was not in Labour’s manifesto, they are taking our idea today. The Liberal Democrats introduced universal infant free school meals when we were in government, and we are today sharing in the joy of the tireless campaigners and struggling families for whom this announcement is such as victory. For far too long, far too many children in this country have gone hungry through the school day. The previous Conservative Government ignored the advice of their own food tsar, Henry Dimbleby, and even Michael Gove, to leave children in poverty without the meals they deserve and need.
This announcement can only be the start. We need to see the policy fully funded and properly implemented. We need to see auto-enrolment, as the Chair of the Select Committee said, so that every child receives the meals they are entitled to, because thousands of eligible children currently miss out. Now we know that the Government are finally looking to the Liberal Democrats for policy ideas on tackling the cost of learning, may I urge them to look again at capping the cost of branded uniform items, not the number of branded uniform items? Lastly, if the Government are serious about tackling the scourge of child poverty, will they finally scrap the two-child benefit cap?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I am keen to ensure that we learn from the best in local government, as we have been on auto-enrolment activity especially. As I mentioned earlier, today’s announcement will make the whole process of applying for free school meals much simpler and easier for parents, but we will certainly take on board my hon. Friend’s comments. I would be very happy to meet him to discuss these issues further.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
After this, we have two Select Committee statements and two Backbench Business debates. If colleagues do not keep their questions short, they are just denying others the opportunity to speak.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Vulnerable children spend many weeks each year—during the holidays—not at school. My own Liberal Democrat-Labour partnership local authority provides funding in the form of vouchers during the school holidays. Will the Government take this opportunity to end holiday hunger and provide funding for food during the holidays?
Stephen Morgan
We of course want to ensure that all families that are eligible for this roll-out benefit from it. Working with other Government Departments, we want to make the process as simple as possible. We are determined to bring down child poverty. We appreciate that the issues are complex, and we want to get this right. We will set out more details in due course.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There are 15 colleagues remaining. If you want me to get you all in, work with me and keep your questions short please. I call Yasmin Qureshi.
Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South and Walkden) (Lab)
This is really welcome news for families in my constituency, with up to 11,450 children now set to benefit from free school meals. I know from speaking with parents that this will make a real difference both in easing pressure at home and in helping children to focus and do well in school. Does the Minister agree that this is the kind of support that families have needed for years, and it is a clear sign that the Government are serious about tackling child poverty and giving every child a fair chance?
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
In Colchester, this measure will benefit over 5,000 children, so it is wonderful news from a Government who are indeed determined to tackle child poverty. Would the Minister like to make a return visit to Colchester, this time to visit not a pioneering pre-school but a pioneering primary school—Unity primary academy in Greenstead—which has just opened a community kitchen that creates an amazing food culture for local families?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
As the Minister is on a tour, I assume that he will be coming to Sussex Weald shortly.
Stephen Morgan
I am not sure whether my office will be happy about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am sure we can make it happen. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I also want to pay tribute to school support staff and teachers who do so much to ensure that children across our country can achieve and thrive. They will know that this Labour Government have their back.
Stephen Morgan
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. I know that she will want to feed into the child poverty strategy to ensure that it is ambitious, but I assure her that that is our intention.
Josh Dean (Hertford and Stortford) (Lab)
Today, I am thinking of the teacher from my constituency who told me that they had to keep cereal bars in their office for children who came to school hungry. That is the legacy of the Conservative party, and I am not surprised that Conservative Members have not turned up to face the music. Research shows that people living with mental health conditions are twice as likely to be living in food-insecure households. Does the Minister agree that this announcement will make a huge change to our young people’s mental health, and that that is exactly what people voted for when they voted Labour?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend will know that we are already committed to rolling out breakfast clubs in every primary school. We want to ensure that there is more money in parents’ pockets through our childcare entitlement roll-out. More broadly, the child poverty strategy will be ambitious on improving outcomes and life chances for every young person.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am personally delighted and looking forward to hosting the Minister in my constituency.
Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]
Nusrat Ghani ExcerptsMonday 31st March 2025
(1 year ago)
Commons ChamberRead 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 Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 31 March 2025 - (31 Mar 2025)
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Report on the impact on Higher Education—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on the provision of degree apprenticeships in England.
(2) The Report must include an impact assessment of the removal of apprenticeship levy funding for degree apprenticeships.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 3—Report on the impact on T levels—
“(1) Within one year of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must publish a report on the impact of this Act on T-Levels.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include—
(a) the involvement of Skills England in the administration of T Levels, including the curriculum and assessment methods;
(b) an assessment of the independence of the accreditation of T-Levels, specifically whether there has been any involvement of the Secretary of State in this process; and
(c) an assessment of the extent to which T-Levels are meeting local demand for skills.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must be laid before both Houses of Parliament.”
New clause 4—Creation of Skills England—
“(1) A body corporate known as Skills England is established to carry out the functions transferred to the Secretary of State under this Act.
(2) At the end of a year after the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must make regulations transferring to Skills England all the functions transferred from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education under this Act.
(3) Nothing in this section prevents the Secretary of State from transferring more functions to Skills England under other enactments.”
This new clause would put Skills England on an independent statutory footing rather than as part of the DfE. The role of IfATE would be included in that planned for Skills England.
Amendment 4, in clause 4, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3B) A group of persons under subsection (3) must include a representative from an organisation that is the representative body for a sector.”
Amendment 5, page 2, line 6, at end insert—
“(3B) When approving a standard under subsection (3), the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable requirements of—
(a) industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and
(b) persons who may wish to undertake education and training.”
Amendment 3, in clause 5, page 2, line 32, at end insert—
“(6B) When approving a standard under subsection (6), the Secretary of State must have regard to the reasonable requirements of—
(a) industry, commerce, finance, professions and other employers regarding education and training, and
(b) persons who may wish to undertake education and training.”
Amendment 1, in clause 9, page 4, line 13, after “England” insert
“, including the impact of removing apprenticeship level funding for degree apprenticeships”.
Amendment 2, page 4, line 13, at end insert—
“(c) the impact of the exercise of the relevant functions on the provision of level 7 apprenticeships in England”
Amendment 6, in clause 12, page 5, line 6, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—
“(1) This Act comes into force at the end of the period of one year beginning on the day on which Skills England is created.”
Ian Sollom
In considering the transfer of functions from the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, we face fundamental questions about the Government’s accountability and the future structure of our skills system. While modest in size, the Bill has far-reaching implications for that system, and for millions of learners and apprentices. It represents a significant centralising of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, without providing proper mechanisms for parliamentary oversight or accountability.
I have sat through many hours of debate on the Bill, during which Labour Members have extolled the virtues of Skills England, but let me emphasise again that the Bill does not actually establish that body, as many assumed that it would. It simply abolishes IfATE and transfers its functions to the Secretary of State, an approach that risks creating a governance vacuum in which there is no proper scrutiny or independent oversight. It is clear from the evidence received by the Bill Committee that I am not alone in having those concerns. The Association of Colleges, the Royal Society of Chemistry, the University of Winchester and the Institute of the Motor Industry all raised similar issues relating to governance and accountability in their written evidence submissions to the Committee.
As was noted by many on Second Reading, skills policy in this country has suffered from constant reorganisation and restructuring. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) has reminded us several times that Skills England will be the 13th skills body to be established in 50 years. Given that history, employers, providers and learners desperately need stability and clarity. In its evidence, the University of Winchester warned:
“The transfer of power from IfATE to the Secretary of State for Education raises questions about the independence of the proposed Skills England regulatory body.”
It also observed that in IfATE, at present,
“employers and academics come together to ensure that the standard is industry relevant, current, and academically rigorous.”
The Skills Federation raised similar concerns:
“The clauses in the bill which transfer powers from IFATE to the Secretary of State risk shifting the development of standards further away from employer demand.”
It also said:
“Too much centralisation leads to a lack of focus on sector needs”.
Ian Sollom
There are different options, and I will come to this issue later. Given the scale of cross-departmental working required, having Skills England sit outside a single Government Department is probably more effective. Moreover, such bodies can be held accountable effectively by Parliament, as we have seen with some other quangos. Indeed, I believe the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council will be set up as a statutory independent body when time allows, and I suggest that Skills England is of the same order of magnitude.
Beyond the concerns about accountability and cross-Government authority, there are practical, operational risks to the approach laid out in the Bill. The Skills Federation warned in its evidence that
“there is a key risk that transfer of functions from IfATE will become the key focus for the set-up of Skills England and less attention (and potentially resources) placed on achieving the overarching aims.”
There is significant concern that the broader strategic purpose of Skills England could be lost in the rush to transfer operational functions. That concern was echoed by Lord Blunkett, who suggested that
“there is a real danger that IfATE will swamp Skills England at birth.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2024; Vol. 841, c. GC98.]
The Government’s impact assessment also acknowledges risks, noting that the transfer of functions could
“potentially cause a temporary slowdown in the growth rate of new apprenticeships and technical education courses due to potential delays in the approvals process”,
which
“may disproportionately impact disadvantaged learners.”
In Committee, the Minister emphasised the urgent need to address skills shortages and said that delay “is not an option.” Although we share the Government’s commitment to addressing skills shortages urgently, I respectfully suggest that there is wisdom in heeding the warning that the University of Warwick gave in its evidence. Getting the foundations right is more important than hasty construction.
In light of those concerns, I tabled new clause 1, which I proposed in Committee. It provides a constructive solution to many of the issues that I have outlined, and proposes a clear pathway for establishing Skills England as a dedicated executive agency within the Department for Education. As I said, my party ultimately believes that a fully independent statutory body with cross-departmental authority is the optimal approach, but we recognise the Government’s preference for the executive agency model, so new clause 1 works within that structure but provides essential safeguards. Under the new clause, the Secretary of State would produce draft proposals for establishing Skills England within six months, lay the proposals before both Houses, secure parliamentary approval before establishing the agency, provide annual statements on the agency’s work, and evaluate its effectiveness 12 months after establishment. This approach strikes the right balance between allowing the Government to implement policy at their desired speed and ensuring proper parliamentary scrutiny and meaningful stakeholder engagement.
As I said, I tabled new clause 1 in Committee because I believe that parliamentary scrutiny is essential for an organisation with such far-reaching responsibilities. The Minister argued that the standard accountability mechanisms for executive agencies are sufficient. However, I contend that Skills England is not just another executive agency; it is central to the Government’s economic growth mission and to creating opportunities for millions of people.
Standard executive agency protocols are built for “business as usual” functions, not for what should be transformative bodies at the heart of the Government’s economic strategy. Having a properly accountable Skills England, even as an executive agency, would ensure that employer voices remain central to standards development rather than being merely consultative; that technical expertise is maintained and developed across economic cycles; that Parliament maintains appropriate oversight for this critical area of policy; and, crucially, that political short-termism does not override long-term skills planning.
In Committee, the Minister argued against new clause 1 on several grounds. First, she suggested that it would cause unnecessary delay in addressing urgent skills challenges. Secondly, she pointed to the existing accountability mechanisms for executive agencies, including framework documents and reporting requirements. Thirdly, she emphasised that Skills England is already operating in shadow form and is poised to take these functions when the Bill passes. Let me address those concerns. On the issue of delay, new clause 1 would require reporting and parliamentary approval within six months—a reasonable timeframe that would not significantly impede progress. As the Skills Federation noted, proper planning for the transfer of functions is essential for success, and parliamentary scrutiny would reinforce, rather than impede, the effective delivery of Skills England.
The existing accountability mechanisms are indeed important, but they are surely insufficient for an organisation of Skills England’s significance. As the University of Winchester argued in its evidence to the Public Bill Committee, Skills England should be structured
“to ensure and protect its regulatory independence from Government and other agencies.”
The framework document and annual reports are important tools, but they are prepared by the Executive without any meaningful parliamentary input.
Skills England’s current shadow operations are welcome preparation, but operating in shadow form, without parliamentary scrutiny or approval, only underscores the need for new clause 1. Important decisions about structure, governance and priorities are being made right now, without any oversight in this place.
The Secretary of State indicated on Second Reading that the Government may review Skills England’s status in 18 to 24 months to consider whether it needs to be an independent statutory body, and the Minister confirmed that timetable in Committee. But why wait? Why create uncertainty about the future status of an organisation that needs to establish credibility with employers now? It is worth noting—as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O'Brien), did in Committee—that the Government plan to put the Industrial Strategy Advisory Council on a statutory footing “when parliamentary time allows”, according to their own documentation. This suggests that they recognise the value of key strategic bodies’ statutory independence, so why should Skills England be treated differently?
New clause 1 offers a constructive path forward, building on the debates we have already had. Personally, I was disappointed that the Government opposed it in Committee, but I believe that the case for proper parliamentary scrutiny remains compelling. Although my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I ultimately believe that a fully independent statutory body would be the ideal model for Skills England, new clause 1 would work within the Government’s executive agency framework to add essential parliamentary scrutiny and accountability.
The Minister assured us in Committee that Skills England will have robust governance arrangements and clear lines of accountability. If the Government truly believe in those principles, they should welcome rather than resist proper parliamentary oversight. If Skills England is to be the cornerstone of our skills system for years to come, even as an Executive agency with the Department for Education, we must ensure that it has the transparency, accountability and parliamentary oversight to withstand changes in political priorities and economic circumstances.
I urge Members across the House to support new clause 1, which would strengthen the Bill and help ensure that the transfer of functions leads to better outcomes for apprentices, students, employers and the economy as a whole.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Pam Cox. Happy birthday! [Interruption.] Do you wish to contribute, or are you going to celebrate your birthday on the Back Benches?
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker; I was rather blown away by that. My birthday was actually on Saturday, but thank you so much.
It is a pleasure to speak in favour of this Bill, as a member of the Public Bill Committee and of the all-party parliamentary group on apprenticeships. The Bill is vital because it paves the way for the creation of Skills England, a new and ambitious body that will bring a fresh urgency to the task of upskilling our young people—and there is an urgency about this.
As the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire (Ian Sollom) said, Skills England will build on the extremely valuable work of the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education, and I would like to pay tribute—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Could you be seated for a moment? We are talking about the amendments to the Bill, not the overall Bill. The idea is to discuss the amendments and whether you disagree with them, but you need to bring your contribution in line with the debate this evening.
Pam Cox
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. The issue is whether we should delay the introduction of this measure to allow more time to set up Skills England. A lot of preparatory work has already been done to set up Skills England, as we discussed quite fully in Committee, and we should get going on training up the carpenters, plumbers, electricians and other apprentices that we all know we need.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Is the hon. Lady taking an intervention?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Has the hon. Lady concluded her speech or is she taking an intervention?
Janet Daby
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
We are on a mission to deliver strong and sustainable economic growth and to break down the barriers to opportunity. Skills will power this mission-driven Government and our plan for change.
I thank Members across the House for their contributions. I especially thank members of the Bill Committee for their scrutiny; the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough (Gill Furniss) for chairing the Committee; and my hon. Friends the Members for Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor (Alan Strickland) and for Lewisham North (Vicky Foxcroft) for their crucial work in guiding the Bill through Committee and the other House of Commons stages.
The Bill has benefited from scrutiny both in this House and in the other place. I welcome the broad support for the creation of Skills England and its work. It is clear that we are united in our recognition of the need to develop a world-leading approach to skills. It is vital if we are to build the highly skilled workforce that we need to meet today’s challenges and grasp tomorrow’s opportunities.
We need skills to get Britain building; we need skills to deliver energy security; and we need skills to advance AI and increase productivity. We need to improve the quality and availability of training to give people from all backgrounds from across the country the power to seize opportunities and improve their lives and their family’s lives. That is why this Labour Government’s very first piece of education legislation will pave the way for Skills England.
According to employers, over one third of vacancies in 2022 were due to skills shortages. This must change. We need to move fast to identify and plug skills gaps in the economy. The Bill is a crucial step in delivering this change. Skills England will combine for the first time insight into skills gaps with the development of technical education to meet the gaps, and the network will ensure that skills needs can be tackled across the country. Skills England is already making a difference. It is changing the way skills gaps are identified and how key organisations are working together to fill them.
This Government are ready to go. As soon as the Bill passes, Skills England stands ready to take forward its work as a strong, coherent, single organisation. Delay is not an option. We must act and we will act. We are acting now. I commend the Bill to the House.
Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
Nusrat Ghani Excerpts(1 year, 1 month ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Catherine McKinnell
The amendments that I am addressing relate particularly to information sharing, which clearly the right hon. Gentleman has concerns about. Members on both sides of the House will be all too aware of the succession of tragedies that we have seen when children have fallen between the cracks in services that should be there to support them. The changes in the Bill are a reflection of this Government’s determination to bring that era of state failure to a close.
New clause 17 relates to the measures on opening new schools. Part 2 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which the Bill is amending, includes a number of relevant duties and powers where personal data might be processed—for example, where a proposal for a new school includes details of the relevant experience of the individual proposers. It makes clear that these powers and duties to give or publish information do not give anyone the right to give or publish personal data in a way that would breach data protection legislation. It applies a data protection override to the whole of part 2 and schedule 2 to the 2006 Act to cover all the information-related powers and duties in relation to opening, closing and altering schools.
Amendments 166 and 167 will ensure that restrictions on the sharing of data, obligations of confidence and other restrictions do not prevent the sharing of information where it is done to protect the welfare of children at registered independent educational institutions or in accommodation provided by schools or colleges. They empower Ofsted to disclose information to other inspectorates of independent educational institutions or of accommodation in schools or colleges, to enable their inspections and ensure high-quality services for our children. We anticipate that information to be shared for those purposes may include that which is given in confidence—for instance, concerns shared with Ofsted by whistleblowers. However, it is essential that information sharing that would help to protect a child’s wellbeing is not hampered. This imperative should override concerns about breaking confidence.
Amendments 90 and 151 are essential because of the Bill’s new powers for local authorities to share data from their “children not in school” registers with the agencies listed in section 11 of the Children Act 2004 and with Ofsted, in line with well-established practices, and to share information to protect and promote the wellbeing of children. The amendments will ensure that local authorities can have confidence that they are acting in the children’s best interest when doing so. There are well-established processes and existing expectations on these agencies to share information to protect and promote the wellbeing of children. Without these amendments, local authorities and these agencies may be concerned that they will be restricted in the information that they can share or receive from the “not in school” register. This information is relevant to help local authorities undertaking safeguarding, welfare and education relating to children, so it is crucial that it can be shared when appropriate.
These amendments serve to strengthen the Bill and ensure that it works as intended to keep children safe, to secure their education and to ensure that each and every family can access a brilliant local school, which is the cornerstone of opportunity for every child. I thank right hon. and hon. Members again for their scrutiny and challenge to the Bill so far. I look forward to listening to the debate, because there is no subject on which the House feels so passionately as the future of our children, and the steps that we must take to ensure thatsb each and every one of them can achieve and thrive.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The Bill does not set out any kind of clear plan or vision for our schools. It does not address the big challenges that need addressing. It is silent on discipline and behaviour—one of the biggest issues. It comes after the Government scrapped simple Ofsted judgments and will be followed by moves to dumb down the curriculum and lower standards further.
The Secretary of State has no positive vision. She has axed programmes for advanced maths, physics, Latin and computing because she thinks that they are elitist. She has axed behaviour hubs with no replacement, even though schools that went through the scheme were twice as likely to be good or outstanding. Yet, somehow, she is able to find £90 million for advertising. The Bill is the worst of all. We have tabled numerous amendments to it. It takes a wrecking ball to 40 years of cross-party reform of England’s schools. Those reforms worked. There is much more to do, but England has risen up the international league tables even as Labour-run Wales has slumped down.
Under successive Governments of all colours, England’s schools have been improved by the magic formula of freedom plus accountability. The Bill attacks both parts of that formula. On the one hand, it strips academy schools of freedoms over recruitment and curriculum and reimposes incredible levels of micromanagement, taking away academy freedoms now enjoyed by 82% of secondary schools. On the other hand, it strikes at accountability and parental choice, ending the automatic transfer of failing schools to new management, reversing the reforms of the late 1980s, which allowed good schools to expand without permission from their local authority—a reform that ushered in parental choice.
Let me unpack this. First, the Bill takes away academy schools’ freedoms over the curriculum. We have tabled amendments to that. As Sir Dan Moynihan, who leads the incredibly successful Harris schools, explained:
“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… 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. 71, Q154.]
Likewise, Luke Sparkes from Dixons argued:
“we…need the ability to enact the curriculum in a responsive and flexible way at a local level…there needs to be a consistency without stifling innovation.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 79, Q167.]
Katharine Birbalsingh, the head of Michaela school, which has been top in the country three years in a row, wrote to the Secretary of State:
“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?”
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, new clause 2 and amendment 2, all in my name. The amount of time afforded to the Education Select Committee to undertake detailed scrutiny of the Bill was very limited. We were able to undertake just one evidence session on part 2, and we deliberately sought not to duplicate the evidence taken by the Public Bill Committee. We therefore took limited evidence on the changes to the role of local authorities in school place planning and admissions.
I speak, however, as an MP whose constituents have suffered the consequences of the fragmentation of admissions policies and place planning over the past 14 years. That has resulted in school places sometimes being delivered in areas where they were not needed, undermining other local schools; our councils struggling to ensure the delivery of school places that were needed, particularly for children with special educational needs and disabilities; and local places at a very popular local school being allocated not to local families but to children across a wide area of south-east London. I therefore wholeheartedly support the attempts in the Bill to restore coherence to admissions and place planning through the role of local authorities.
I also support the measures to reduce the cost of school uniform for families by limiting the number of branded items, which are a really significant cost of living pressure for families. However, I encourage the Government to keep a careful watch on how this requirement is being complied with, particularly in relation to the cost of blazers, having heard of one appalling example in my constituency of a very vulnerable child who had been allocated a place at a good school but was told she could not attend until she was wearing a blazer, the cost of which was over £100—way beyond the means of her family. I know the Minister will agree that no child should be shut out of the classroom because their family cannot afford the right clothes for them to wear, and that that is the intention of the Bill, but the monitoring of the detail will be important.
I also welcome the measures in the Bill to introduce a register of home-educated children. While home education is the right option for some children who are well supported to receive education at home, the number of children going missing from the education radar, out of sight and without any regulation of the quality of the education they are receiving, and sometimes coming to harm, as in the horrific recent case of Sara Sharif, is deeply concerning. The measures in the Bill will help to address this.
The Education Committee welcomes the introduction of breakfast clubs in the Bill, which will help to ensure that no child has to start the school day hungry, but we also heard compelling evidence of the importance of school lunches for the poorest children. Around one in 10 children who are eligible for free school meals do not claim them because their parents or carers do not complete the administrative process. This can be because of difficulties with the administrative process itself, lack of awareness about the entitlement, or language barriers. Children from non-white backgrounds are more likely to be unregistered.
This under-registration has impacts on schools too, since the ability of schools to draw down pupil premium funding is linked directly to the registration of eligible children for free school meals. I am talking about the existing entitlement, not a new spending commitment. The benefits of free school meals for children’s health and wellbeing and their ability to learn are clear, and are being seen in local authorities that are already auto-enrolling eligible children, including Middlesbrough, Redcar and Cleveland and some London boroughs. In London, the benefits are pupil premium receipts for schools because the Mayor of London is already funding universal free school meals.
Research from the Food Foundation found that, while local authorities were successful in their mission to reduce the number of eligible children missing out on free school meals, it was a difficult and resource-intensive task, and the data sharing between relevant authorities necessary to register children automatically was not straightforward. The local authorities piloting auto-enrolment have called for central Government to step in and help. The Committee has recommended that the Government introduce auto-enrolment for children already eligible for free school meals. This recommendation would ensure that between 200,000 and 250,000 additional families with the poorest children in our country, who are already eligible, will receive the meals to which they are entitled. That recommendation is reflected in new clause 1, and I hope the Government will choose to support it today.
I turn to amendment 2. The Committee took evidence on breakfast clubs. We heard about the benefits of them both in ensuring that children do not start the school day hungry, and in relation to the opportunity afforded a child to settle gently into the school day and play with their friends. We also heard about the need for breakfast to be provided on a flexible basis, so that children whose families are unable to get them to school early. who may be among the most vulnerable children, do not miss out on this vital meal.
The Committee has heard extensive evidence in our inquiry on special educational needs and disability about the difficulties that families of disabled children have in finding childcare and accessing extracurricular activities. To that end, it is vital that children with SEND can access breakfast clubs on an equal footing with their peers. This may involve additional costs, particularly in relation to home-to-school transport and the need to have specialist staff on site at the time of the breakfast club. I welcome the fact that the early adopters programme includes about 50 specialist schools, but the inclusion of children with SEND in breakfast clubs in mainstream schools is also essential, and I hope the Government are looking closely at the early adopters and at any additional support that may be needed to ensure that. Amendment 2 would ensure that children with SEND were able to access breakfast clubs, and I hope the Government will support it.
Finally, I turn to new clause 2. This is a very large Bill covering many areas of policy, and it is being taken through this House very quickly and was not subject to any pre-legislative scrutiny. There have been a large number of Government amendments at a late stage, and a number of measures in the Bill will be contingent on Government policies that are not in the Bill for their success, including the curriculum and assessment review, the reforms to the Ofsted assessment framework and the work of the child poverty taskforce.
New clause 2 would require the Secretary of State to conduct regular reviews of the impact of this Act and to publish reports. I would anticipate that such reviews would show a positive impact of this legislation. Having a clear monitoring and reporting mechanism is good practice, particularly for a Bill of this size that has been delivered so quickly. I welcome the intention behind this Bill and the measures it contains. I look forward to supporting it this evening, and my Committee looks forward to playing a constructive role in scrutinising its impact in the months and years to come.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
A number of measures in part 2 of this Bill are to be welcomed. However, after a decade of neglect by the Conservatives, I want to ask Ministers this: when our schools are crumbling, when we cannot find specialist teachers, when special needs provision is in crisis and when we have a huge persistent absence problem, why have the Government chosen to tinker with academies and governance arrangements as their priority education policy? The one strong message coming through from education leaders, including those who have no ideological axe to grind, is that the way that the Government have gone about part 2 of the Bill shows a lack of coherent vision for the school system, with no White Paper and no consultation with those on the frontline or in leadership positions across the sector.
I turn to some of the new clauses tabled in my name. With all the pressures on family finances, new clause 7 would ensure that free school meals were available to children from households earning less than £20,000 per year and automatically enrol eligible children into this provision. Liberal Democrats have long believed that this is an effective, targeted intervention that would help children in poverty at both primary and secondary school to concentrate, to learn and to thrive.
New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to find out exactly how many children were eligible for, but not claiming, free school meals or were not registered for pupil premium funding. It beggars belief that, as spelled out in recent answers to parliamentary questions that I have submitted, the Government are flying blind on this issue, with the last proper study of uptake dating back to 2013. New clause 54 would require regular reviews of free school meal uptake.
As we discussed at length this morning in Westminster Hall, and as the Chair of the Education Committee pointed out, an estimated 230,000 eligible children are missing out on a free school meal. Where local authorities auto-enrol children into free school meals, it makes a real difference. In Liberal Democrat-led Durham, 2,500 additional children now benefit from a hot lunch, and their schools benefit from an additional £3 million in pupil premium funding.
In Committee, the Minister confirmed the Government’s intention to improve uptake by looking at auto-enrolment and data sharing between Departments. However, his suggestion that locally led efforts were more likely to meet the needs of local communities risks patchy action across the country. We believe that this requires a national response, and we therefore strongly urge the Government to look at auto-enrolment as well as increasing the eligibility threshold, to ensure that we are feeding some of our poorest pupils, whether they are at primary or secondary school.
Staying on the theme of the cost of living pressures on families, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches strongly support the objective of bringing down the cost of school uniforms for hard-pressed families up and down the country. However, we remain concerned that the Bill as drafted, in setting a maximum number of branded uniform items, is highly prescriptive for schools and will not actually rein in the costs of those items. As the Chair of the Select Committee has just pointed out, there is nothing to prevent items costing £100 or more each. Furthermore, an answer to a parliamentary question that I tabled stated that, on average, girls’ uniforms cost £25 to £30 more than boys’ uniforms. If we want to tackle these inequalities, the best thing to do is to support our amendment 1.
I want to put on record my thanks to the Clerks, because we picked up a drafting error in our amendment 1. The online version is correct, but the printed version is incorrect. Our amendment 1 actually amends clause 24 and proposes a monetary cap, rather than a cap on the number of items. That would be reviewed and updated in line with inflation through secondary legislation every year. It would also drive down costs as suppliers would have to compete for school contracts.
Munira Wilson
I am shocked, because I was about to come to that as a possible solution to staying within the price cap. Apparently that will not be allowed either—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. If the statement that the hon. Lady has made about a potential drafting error is indeed the case, has she made arrangements to ensure that the correct version of the amendment has been published?
Munira Wilson
Yes, we have been in touch with the Clerks, who have corrected the amendment online. The printed version is incorrect, but in the online version amendment 1 amends clause 24 instead of clause 23.
Munira Wilson
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In Committee, the Minister said that a cost cap, rather than an item cap, would be too complex and risked reducing choice for parents by increasing schools’ reliance on specific suppliers. She also suggested that there would be regional variation in uniform pricing. Again, having tabled a PQ, it is clear that there has been no analysis by the Government to show regional variation in uniform prices.
I was going to suggest that schools that wanted more branding on items under a cost cap could sew or stick logos on plain jumpers and other items bought cheaply in supermarkets. I believe the Government want parents to have choice. My suggestion would give parents the choice of going to a well-known supermarket brand and then applying the school logo. I am shocked to hear about the answer to the PQ tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and I will have a look at it afterwards. Our amendment 1 would put pounds and pennies back into parents’ pockets and avoid top-down meddling from Whitehall on school uniform policy.
Also on school uniforms, new clause 12 concerns a simple matter of fairness. The zero rate of VAT applies only on clothing for children up to the age of 14, and parents have to pay VAT on school uniforms for children who are larger or over the age of 14. In Committee, the Minister cited the cost to the Exchequer of making the change, but if the Government’s stated aim is to bring down uniform prices, I humbly suggest that she presses the Chancellor to look at this amendment, because it is a simple change to make.
Turning to special needs, as I said at the outset, this is probably the biggest burning priority for the school leaders I speak to up and down the country. It certainly is across this House, given the number of Members involved in SEND debates. New clause 10 in my name would establish a new dedicated national body for SEND, which would fund high-needs provision and ensure that children with particularly complex needs receive tailored support. With high-needs spending having tripled since 2015 and, as the Minister herself pointed out, educational outcomes for SEND pupils remaining stagnant, we need to reform the system. I know she is busy working on this, but a national body would help reduce the postcode lottery for those with the highest needs. Indeed, a growing body of experts in the sector are starting to suggest that a national body could gather evidence on the efficacy of various SEND interventions.
Yesterday I said it was surprising that a Bill so entitled had little content on wellbeing. Given the huge and growing mental health crisis among our children and young people, new clause 9 in my name would place a duty on school governing bodies to ensure that every school in England, whether primary or secondary, has a dedicated mental health practitioner on site. The Government have repeatedly said they are committed to providing mental health support in every school, but it was clear when I pressed the Minister in the Chamber during a debate last Thursday that the support the Government are committed to providing will certainly not be the equivalent of a full-time person in every school. Mental health support teams, which the Government are looking to expand, do great work but are spread far too thinly. Our children and our schools are crying out for more dedicated mental health professional time.
Let me turn to the issue of academy schools. I fear that the Government are mostly trying to fix a problem that does not really exist, rather than focusing on the real challenges in education. My biggest concern here is that Ministers are putting the cart before the horse by writing into legislation that all schools must follow a curriculum of which we do not yet know the content because it is under review. New clause 51 in my name would ensure that we have a core common curriculum with local flexibility built in. New clause 52 would ensure parliamentary oversight, given that we do not know the results of the ongoing review. Although we Liberal Democrats have always maintained that the automatic academy order is not a silver bullet for turning around failing schools, until such a time as Ofsted and Government have settled on a swift and robust new accountability and inspection regime to ensure high standards in all our schools, removing the automatic academy order for schools that are causing concern is certainly very risky. Amendments 223 and 225 in my name would ensure parliamentary oversight and attempt to mitigate some of those risks.
Let me turn to home education. On Second Reading, I stated that we Liberal Democrats strongly support a register of children not in school to ensure that vulnerable children do not disappear from the system. We also strongly support the right of parents to choose to home educate where that is the best option for their child. However, in evidence to the Bill Committee, even the Association of Directors of Children’s Services was circumspect about the amount of information that parents will be expected to supply, as set out in clause 26. That level of detail risks becoming intrusive and unnecessary. Ministers must think again.
New clause 48 calls for, at the very least, a review of the register’s impact on home educators to be carried out within six months, to ensure that only reporting requirements that are strictly necessary for safeguarding purposes are retained. Amendment 224 would remove the requirement for carers of children in special schools to secure local authority consent to be home educated. New clause 53 would ensure that home-educated children are not excluded from national examinations because of financial or capacity constraints.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Before I call the next speaker, I refer back to the point made by Munira Wilson about the corrected online version of her amendment 1, for the benefit of Members who are in the Chamber. In case there is any confusion, the correct version should begin:
“Clause 24, page 44, leave out lines 34 to line 4 on page 45 and insert”.
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and express my support for the Bill. For far too long, school children have borne the brunt of academisation. Fortunately, the Labour Government in Wales rejected this model, but, having been a teacher on the border for most of my working life and a national executive member of the NASUWT, I have seen at first hand the negative impact of academies becoming the default model, while local authorities have been sidelined.
Since the introduction of the Academies Act 2010, the freedom for academies and free schools to set their own pay, terms and conditions has led to the exploitation of teachers. For example, teachers at Ark schools are expected to work 1,657 hours more annually than a maintained school teacher, while earning £7 less per hour. The lack of national consistency not only allows these schools to undervalue and overwork staff but undermines basic rights such as pension schemes, maternity and sick pay. Our Bill will tackle those disparities by extending the statutory pay and conditions framework to all teachers in academies, ensuring greater consistency and fairness between academies and maintained schools.
There is also the issue of admission policies. Too many schools misuse their control over admissions to break with inclusive local authority policies, selecting what they consider to be a more favourable intake of students. The Bill’s extension of the power to direct admissions to academies will ensure that local authorities can secure places for hard-to-place and vulnerable students, rather than allowing academies to exercise shameful selective admissions. Furthermore, by ending academy presumption, the Bill takes a significant step towards increasing academy accountability, empowering local authorities to better serve the needs of their communities, particularly helping SEND students and reducing reliance on unaffordable independent providers.
I hope to see the severe disparity between teachers’ pay and the high salaries of academy CEOs reviewed and addressed in future education legislation. We must ensure that funding is directed where it is most needed: to teaching and learning. This Bill marks an historic first step towards creating an accountable and fair education system that will benefit all our children.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I remind hon. Members that interventions should be short.
Sarah Smith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way once again. In my most recent conversation with a group of my headteachers, not one of them raised concerns about this section of the Bill and the reforms. For them, the question of academisation and how the amendments have been made will not limit them in their capabilities to do the best for their children. They are concerned about issues that will come forward as a result of the Bill around SEND, which have been mentioned by hon. Members from across the House, and other things that are restricting them from making progress.
Neil O’Brien
We have a limited number of things that we can press to a vote, but I hope, as we go to the debate in the other place, that we are in complete agreement on the excessive nature of some of the requirements being made of home schoolers, who we must not treat as illegitimate just because they choose to educate their children in a certain way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) used his huge experience to take us on a rather bleak journey from the reforming agenda of the early Blair years to the regress that we are seeing now. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) explained why this was such a mistake and took us through the Bill in bleak detail.
I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), but I do agree with her on Andrew Tate, whom I regard as totally abhorrent. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Justice Secretary, is leading the charge to get the Tates deported to this country so that they can face justice here. I find their work utterly, utterly abhorrent.
My brilliant hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) contrasted the reforming rhetoric that we at least see in other Departments with the rather retro agenda in the Department for Education. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who did so much work in Committee, gave us another brilliant and witty speech. He talked about how Labour reformers had always been swimming against the tide, and I think that is right. He also talked about the free school breakfast numbers that the Government have used and the claim that they are going to save parents £450. This is a mysterious figure, because if we want to give £450 to every primary school child, that will cost north of £2 billion, but the Government are spending £33 million, so they are two orders of magnitude apart. Why will the Government not publish the workings behind this figure? I think the truth is that the source is the back of a spad’s fag packet, to be completely honest.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) gave a good speech, and the thing I absolutely agree with him about is the importance of teaching. It is one of the best and most noble things anyone can do with their life. All of us as MPs do school visits, and we might do an hour of highly energetic chat with people in year 6. We then realise the energy required to be a teacher and to keep that up all day, so I absolutely pay tribute to those who are doing this noble work.
One of the most interesting speeches this afternoon was the one from the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden). Various Labour Members said that things under the last Government were not nirvana, and that is right. Various people said that there were more things to fix, and that is right too. We absolutely agree with that. But the hon. Member said that things were so much better in Wales because they had avoided the Blair-era reforming agenda, they had avoided academies, they had got rid of league tables for a time, they were still using other methods such as cueing rather than phonics, and so on and so forth. But let us just have a look at the numbers to see what that has done.
The PISA tables show that, under the last Government, England went from 11th to ninth on science, 19th to ninth on reading and 21st to seventh on maths. That is a huge increase. In Wales, the best bit was on maths, where they went from 29th to 27th. They were flat at 28th on reading and collapsed from 21st to 29th on science. A pretty dismal record, really. I would encourage those who say that things are brilliant in Wales to read the searing report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which is known for its mild-mannered work and cautious judgments. The report states:
“PISA scores declined by more in Wales than in most other countries in 2022, with scores declining by about 20 points (equivalent to about 20% of a standard deviation, which is a big decline). This brought scores in Wales to their lowest ever level, significantly below the average across OECD countries and significantly below those seen across the rest of the UK…Lower scores in Wales cannot be explained by higher levels of poverty. In PISA, disadvantaged children in England score about 30 points higher, on average, than disadvantaged children in Wales. This is a large gap…Even more remarkably, the performance of disadvantaged children in England is either above or similar to the average for all children in Wales.”
Disadvantaged children in England are doing better than all children in Wales, and the IFS also points out that the disadvantage gap is bigger in Wales. It concludes that the explanation for lower educational performance is not ethnicity or deprivation, and that it
“is much more likely to reflect longstanding differences in policy and approach, such as lower levels of external accountability and less use of data.”
That is the damning indictment of the IFS.
As Adams said, “Facts are stubborn things”. We have seen what this agenda does in Wales. It is a disaster, and those who are the most deprived are the ones who lose out the most. That is why this afternoon we are going to be pushing our amendments to protect academy freedoms, to protect the ability of good schools to grow and to protect parental choice. This Bill shifts power from parents to politicians, and we will always resist that. We will be moving to a vote now to stop this destructive agenda, which has failed in Wales and will fail in England too.
Catherine McKinnell
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, some of which have been well considered and delivered powerfully—others less so. This Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity by driving high and rising standards. That has to be the right of every child, delivered through excellent teaching and leadership, a high-quality curriculum, and a system that removes the barriers to learning that hold too many children back, all underpinned by strong and clear accountability. This Bill delivers the legislative elements of the broader vision that we are determined to deliver. As part of that, from next term free breakfast clubs will start being rolled out in early adopter schools across the country, including special schools and alternative provision settings. Members who tabled amendments 2, 219 and 220 are right that it is critical that the new breakfast clubs are accessible for children with special educational needs and disabilities. All pupils, including those with SEND and those in special schools, are already in the existing drafting of the clause. The need to get this right is why we are testing, and learning through, the early adopter programme.
On amendments 214, 215, 217 and 218, it is important to be clear on the distinction between food-only options being “alongside” or “instead of” the breakfast clubs. The club is as important as the breakfast. It gives children a settled start to the day and will secure improvements in attendance and behaviour, so the right approach is to legislate to give schools certainty of the minimum they need to provide and to work with early adopters to see how schools can maximise attendance at these clubs. To promote food-only offers may risk undermining the club element.
Let us be clear: we inherited a shameful legacy from the previous Government. Compared with when Labour last left office, 700,000 more children are growing up with their lives and life chances scarred by poverty. Children cannot achieve or thrive if the stressors and strains of growing up in poverty—of seeing their parents worried about putting food on the table, of being concerned about their younger siblings or whether their friends will judge them for not having the basics—are put on their shoulders. I know my hon. Friends share the Government’s concern for those children and their futures. We have set up the child poverty taskforce chaired by my right hon. Friends the Education Secretary and the Work and Pensions Secretary to look at how we can work across Government to tackle the causes and impacts of poverty on children’s lives.
The support the Government provide through their school food programmes to enable families to access healthy, nutritious food is being considered as part of that work. It is right that these considerable reforms, such as extending universal infant free school meals to all primary pupils, are considered through this route in a holistic way. Alongside the work of the taskforce, we are making progress to make it easier for families to access their entitlements, and I recognise the concern that right hon. and hon. Members have for children missing out.
The Government are pressing ahead with making it quicker and easier for families and local authorities to get children signed up for free school meals with our new eligibility checking system, which allows parents to check their eligibility and supports the local efforts we have seen to ensure that children receive that support. Further, I can confirm that our officials are working with the Government Digital Service in the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore options on further data sharing to get more families signed up for their entitlements. We expect to have those provisions in place from next year, well ahead of the academic year beginning in September 2026.
Our officials are working with the Department for Work and Pensions to explore options on supporting enrolment through universal credit. My Department will monitor the impact of those policies and engage with local authorities to assess the impact of the changes on the uptake of free school meals. I would be happy to update the House on that work and write to the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), by way of doing so.
The Secretary of State for Education (Bridget Phillipson)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This is legislation that belongs to children. The clue is in the name—the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It is for them. It is because this Government are for them. We are on a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for each and every child, to sever the link between background and success, and this Bill sits at the centre of that mission.
Let me start by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions, especially members of the Bill Committee for their scrutiny. I say a particular thank you to the ministerial team—my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—for guiding the Bill through its Commons stages.
This debate is valuable. Education is back at the forefront of national life and children are back at the centre of our national conversation. Every child in this country deserves a safe childhood and an excellent education.
The action in the Bill cements in legislation the biggest reform of children’s social care in a generation, keeping children with their families wherever it is safe to do so, supporting them to stay together and strengthening kinship care so that vulnerable children can live with the people they know and trust if they cannot continue to live with their parents. It fixes the broken care market so that when children cannot stay with their family, and kinship or foster care sadly is not an option, children have somewhere to live that is safe, secure and supportive.
After 14 years of inaction and our most vulnerable children being pushed to the sidelines, their voices not heard, the Bill puts their life chances front and centre. We have started that reform already, piloting new financial support for kinship carers and investing over £500 million into family help and child protection in the next financial year alone.
This a Bill that protects children based on data, evidence and expertise, laying the groundwork for a single unique identifier for children, enabling sharing of the right information at the right time, creating multi-agency child protection teams and requiring permission before children subject to child protection inquiries or plans can be home educated. It spots early warning signs and stops vulnerable children falling through the cracks. It starts with safety and it builds from there. The Bill legislates for free breakfast clubs in primary schools, so that our children are ready to learn at the start of the school day. It puts money back in parents’ pockets, with breakfast clubs saving them up to £450 a year. Our new limit on expensive branded uniforms will save some parents over £50 per child in the back-to-school shop. This is a Government who support families, parents and children alike.
It is the right of every child to have every opportunity to succeed, and it is the right of every parent to send their child to a great local school. That is what the Bill will do. It will provide the certainty of an excellent local school for every child. Our best schools and trusts are partners and leaders. They have shown the value of collaboration, and how excellence and innovation can flow from one classroom to another. It is time to bring that to the whole country: excellence in every classroom, science lab, art studio and music room in every type of school. The curriculum and assessment review published its interim report just this afternoon. From that review will come the rich and broad curriculum that our children need and deserve, delivered by expert teachers, raising a floor of high standards below which schools must not slip, and above which they can build and innovate with no ceiling on what they can achieve.
When it comes to our children’s safety and life chances, I am always impatient. I ask Opposition Members to put aside their rhetoric and gimmickry, just for one moment, and consider what their constituents actually want—not their friends in high places, in the commentariat and in the Westminster bubble, but parents up and down this country. Parents want qualified teachers at the front of their children’s classrooms. Parents want to know for sure what their child is being taught. Parents want more teachers in our schools, better trained and supported. Parents want free breakfast clubs in their child’s primary school. Parents want cheaper uniforms that do not set them back at the start of every term. Parents want stronger safeguards for children after the horrific incidents that we have sadly seen in recent years.
If Opposition Members oppose the Bill, that is what they are opposing. They may talk in the vaguest of terms about the supposed horror that the Bill will unleash. We have seen it all before. Just months ago, they told us that Labour’s plans to end tax breaks on private schools would send a flood of children into state schools, who would overrun them—scaremongering. I have lost count of all the doom-laden stories. Do they come to pass? Absolutely not. Once again, the Conservatives are on the wrong side of parents, resisting change and protecting privilege. It speaks to a wider point. The Conservatives are just lost. They are so out of ideas, clinging on to the misguided hope that the public will just forget the past 14 years as if they never happened and that it was not all for nothing. But it was.
Labour is cleaning up the mess that the Conservative party left behind, to ensure that every child has a safe, loving home, to put money back into parents’ pockets, to drive high and rising standards in all our schools and to deliver the brighter future that every child in our country deserves. I commend the Bill to the House.