Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill [Lords]

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 31st March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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”.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Morello]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. Is the hon. Lady taking an intervention?

[Pam Cox]

I am sitting down.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Has the hon. Lady concluded her speech or is she taking an intervention?

[Pam Cox]

I have concluded.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[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?”

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

We will ensure that that process has indeed taken place.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Graham Stuart]

I happily give way to the hon. Lady again.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Minister.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 17th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

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:

Government new clause 19—Cases in which duty under section (Corporate parenting responsibilities)(1) does not apply.

Government new clause 20—Corporate parenting duty: collaborative working.

Government new clause 21—Duty to have regard to guidance.

Government new clause 22—Reports by Secretary of State.

New clause 3—National Care Offer—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 18 months of the passing of this Act, publish a document (the “National Care Offer”) which sets out the minimum standards of information that local authorities must publish under section 2 of the Children and Social Work Act 2017 (local offer for care leavers).

(2) Before publishing or revising the National Care Offer, the Secretary of State must consult with persons that appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of care leavers.

(3) Where a consultation under subsection (2) results in recommendations to be made to the National Care Offer, the Secretary of State must—

(a) make the recommended changes or otherwise implement the recommendations; or

(b) where not intending to make the recommended changes or otherwise implement the recommendations, publish a response to the consultation outlining the reasons for the Secretary of State’s decision and the action that will be taken instead.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult on and publish a draft National Care Offer, which sets minimum standards for local care offers, within 18 months of this Act coming into force.

New clause 4—Health assessments to include mental health practitioner—

“In regulation 7 of the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010, after “practitioner” in paragraph (1) insert “and a registered mental health practitioner”.”

This new clause would make an assessment of the mental health of children in care a core part of the health assessment of those children by ensuring a mental health practitioner is involved in the assessment.

New clause 8—Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment—

“(1) The Children Act 2004 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 58 (Reasonable Punishment: England), omit subsections (1) to (4).

(3) After section 58, insert—

“58A Abolition of common law defence of reasonable punishment

(1) The common law defence of reasonable punishment is abolished in relation to corporal punishment of a child taking place in England.

(2) Corporal punishment of a child taking place in England cannot be justified in any civil or criminal proceedings on the ground that it constituted reasonable punishment.

(3) Corporal punishment of a child taking place in England cannot be justified in any civil or criminal proceedings on the ground that it constituted acceptable conduct for the purposes of any other rule of the common law.

(4) For the purposes of subsections (1) to (3) “corporal punishment” means any battery carried out as a punishment.

(5) The Secretary of State may make regulations for transitory, transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section.

(6) The power to make regulations under subsection (5) is exercisable by statutory instrument.

58B Promotion of public awareness and reporting

(1) The Secretary of State must take steps before the coming into force of section 58A to promote public awareness of the changes to the law to be made by that section.

(2) The Secretary of State must, five years after its commencement, prepare a report on the effect of the changes to the law made by section 58A.

(3) The Secretary of State must, as soon as practicable after preparing a report under this section—

(a) lay the report before Parliament, and

(b) publish the report.

(4) The Secretary of State may make regulations for transitory, transitional or saving provision in connection with the coming into force of this section.

(5) The power to make regulations under subsection (4) is exercisable by statutory instrument.””

This new clause would abolish the common law defence of reasonable punishment in relation to corporal (physical) punishment of a child taking place in England, amend certain provisions of the Children Act 2004 relating to corporal punishment of children and place a duty on the Secretary of State to report this change.

New clause 13—Review of adoption support offered by local authorities—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the adequacy and effectiveness of adoption support services provided by local authorities.

(2) The review must include services provided by adoption agencies which have been commissioned by local authorities.

(3) The review must consider in particular—

(a) any updates required to existing regulations and guidance relating to adoption; and

(b) the support needs of, and support services currently available or provided to—

(i) relevant parties in relation to birth family contact;

(ii) young adult adoptees in relation to their transition to adulthood; and

(iii) adult adoptees.

(4) Within six months of the completion of the review, the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament a report on the findings and conclusions of the review.”

New clause 14—Notification when a child is placed into temporary accommodation—

“(1) This section applies where a local authority is exercising its duty under Section 189B of the Housing Act 1996 (Initial duty owed to all eligible persons who are homeless) to allocate temporary accommodation to a household which includes a child.

(2) A local authority must notify the following of the household’s homelessness status—

(a) the child’s school, and

(b) the child’s registered GP practice.

(3) The Secretary of State must issue guidance to schools and GPs on how to safeguard and promote a child’s welfare and wellbeing following receipt of a notification under subsection (2).

(4) A local authority must, before issuing a notification under subsection (2), request the consent of the household for the sharing of information relating to the household’s homelessness status.

(5) Subsection (2) does not apply if the household has not consented to the local authority sharing information about it.”

This new clause would establish a notification system requiring local authorities to alert schools and GPs, when a child is placed into temporary accommodation. The notification can only occur when the child’s parent or guardian consent to the sharing of this information.

New clause 15—Implementation of recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, take steps to implement the recommendations made in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse listed below.

(2) The recommendations are—

(a) the establishment of a single core data set on child sexual abuse and child sexual exploitation in England and Wales;

(b) the establishment of Child Protection Authorities for England and Wales;

(c) the creation of cabinet Ministers for Children in the UK and Welsh Governments;

(d) the commissioning of regular public awareness campaigns on child sexual abuse;

(e) the amendment of the Children Act 1989 to provide for court action where there is reasonable cause to believe that a child in the care of a local authority is experiencing or is at risk of experiencing significant harm;

(f) the creation of registration systems for care staff in children’s homes, young offender institutions and secure training centres;

(g) greater use of the barred list in relation to persons recruiting individuals to work or volunteer with children on a frequent basis;

(h) the improvement of compliance with statutory duties to notify the Disclosure and Barring Service of the suitability of individuals to work with children;

(i) the extension of the powers of the Disclosure and Barring Service to provide enhanced certificates to people working with children overseas; and

(j) the provision of specialist and accredited therapeutic support to child victims of sexual abuse.

(3) The Secretary of State must, after a period of six months has elapsed from the passing of this Act and at 12 monthly intervals thereafter, publish a report detailing the steps taken by the Government to implement each of the recommendations listed above.

(4) A report published under subsection (3) must include—

(a) actions taken to meet, action or implement each of the recommendations;

(b) details of any further action required to implement each of the recommendations or planned to supplement the recommendations;

(c) consideration of any challenges to full or successful implementation of the recommendations, with proposals for addressing these challenges so as to facilitate implementation of the recommendations; and

(d) where it has not been practicable to fully implement a recommendation—

(i) explanation of why implementation has not been possible;

(ii) a statement of the Government’s intention to implement the recommendation; and

(iii) a timetable for implementation.”

New clause 25—Kinship care leave—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, entitle an individual to be absent from work on care leave under this section where—

(a) the individual is a kinship carer, and

(b) the individual satisfies conditions specified in the regulations.

(2) Regulations made under subsection (1) must include provision for determining—

(a) the extent of an individual’s entitlement to leave under this section; and

(b) when leave under this section may be taken.

(3) Provision under subsection (2)(a) must secure that—

(a) where one individual is entitled to leave under this section, they are entitled to at least 52 weeks of leave; or

(b) where more than one individual is entitled to leave under this section in respect of the same child, those individuals are entitled to share at least 52 weeks of leave between them.

(4) An employee is entitled to leave under this section only if the eligible kinship care arrangement is intended to last—

(a) at least one year, and

(b) until the child being cared for attains the age of 18.

(5) For the purposes of this section, a “kinship carer” has the meaning given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.

(6) Regulations made under this section may make provision about how leave under this section is to be taken.”

New clause 26—Kinship care allowance—

“(1) A person is entitled to a kinship care allowance for any week in which that person is engaged as a kinship carer in England.

(2) For the purposes of this section, a “kinship carer” has the meaning given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.

(3) A person is not entitled to an allowance under this section unless that person satisfies conditions prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(4) A person may claim an allowance under this section in respect of more than one child.

(5) Where two or more persons would be entitled for the same week to such an allowance in respect of the same child, only one allowance may be claimed on the behalf of—

(a) the person jointly elected by those two for that purpose, or

(b) in default of such an election, the person determined by, and at the discretion of, the Secretary of State.

(6) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as engaged, or regularly and substantially engaged, in caring for a child under an eligible kinship care arrangement.

(7) An allowance under this section is payable at the weekly rate specified by the Secretary of State in regulations.

(8) Regulations under subsection (7) may specify—

(a) different weekly rates for different ages of children being cared for, or

(b) different weekly rates for different regions of England.

(9) Regulations under subsection (7) must specify a weekly rate that is no lower than the minimum weekly allowance for foster carers published by the Secretary of State pursuant to section 23 of the Care Standards Act 2000.”

New clause 27—Extension of pupil premium to children subject to a kinship care arrangement—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, for the financial year beginning 1 April 2026 and for each year thereafter, provide that an amount is payable from the pupil premium grant to schools and local authorities in respect of each registered pupil in England who is who is a child living in kinship care.

(2) The amount payable under subsection (1) must be equal to the amount that is payable for a pupil who is a looked after child.

(3) In this section—

“a child living in kinship care” is to be interpreted in the same manner as given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.

“looked after child” has the same meaning as in the Children Act 1989;

”pupil premium grant” means the grant of that name paid to a school or a local authority by the Secretary of State under section 14 of the Education Act 2002 (power of Secretary of State and Senedd Cymru to give financial assistance for purposes related to education or children etc).”

New clause 28—Admissions arrangements relating to looked after children and children in kinship care—

“(1) For section 88B of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 (admission arrangements relating to children looked after by local authority) substitute—

“88B Admissions arrangements relating to looked after children and children in kinship care

(1) Regulations may require the admission authorities for maintained schools in England to include in their admission arrangements provision relating to the admission of children who are—

(a) looked after by a local authority in England, or

(b) living in kinship care as may be prescribed.

(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may in particular include provision for securing that, subject to sections 86(3), 86B(2) and (4) and 87, such children are to be offered admission in preference to other children.

(3) In this section, “children who are living in kinship care” is to be interpreted in the same manner as given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act.””

New clause 29—Establishment of National Wellbeing Measurement Programme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must establish a national children and young people’s wellbeing measurement programme.

(2) A programme established under this section must—

(a) conduct a national survey of the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in relevant schools in England;

(b) support schools in the administration of the survey

(c) make provision for parental and student consent to participation in the survey, ensuring that participation is voluntary and that results are handled confidentially; and

(d) regularly publish the results of the survey and provide relevant data to participating schools, local authorities and other public bodies for the purposes of improving children and young people’s wellbeing.

(3) A programme established under this section must—

(a) be developed and piloted within two years of the passing of this Act;

(b) be fully implemented in England no later than the start of the academic year three years after the passing of this Act;

(c) be reviewed as to its effectiveness by the Secretary of State every three years.

(4) Any review of the programme under subsection (3)(c) must be published and laid before Parliament.

(5) For the purposes of this section “relevant school” means—

(a) an academy school,

(b) an alternative provision Academy,

(c) a maintained school,

(d) a non-maintained special school,

(e) an independent school, or

(f) a pupil referral unit, other than where established in a hospital.”

This new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State to introduce a national programme to regularly measure and report on the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in schools.

New clause 30—Benefits of outdoor education to children’s wellbeing—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, conduct a review on the benefits of outdoor education to children's wellbeing.

(2) A report on the review must be published within six months of the conclusion of the review.”

New clause 33—National standards for children in need thresholds—

(1) The Secretary of State must, within a year of the passing of this Act, conduct a review of the operation of section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (Provision of services for children in need, their families and others).

(2) The review must assess regional and national variation in the type, frequency, and duration of support provided to children through child in need plans.

(3) The recommendations of the review must include the setting of—

(a) metrics in the Department for Education’s Children’s Social Care Dashboard for assessing the progress of children with child in need plans, and

(b) national guidance for local authorities defining the thresholds of need that children and families must meet to be offered children in need support.

(4) The national guidance issued under section (2)(b) must include—

(a) national triggers for an automatic referral to children’s social care, including when a primary care giver enters custody or inpatient mental health provision, and when a child is arrested,

(b) the Secretary of State’s expectations on how often children should receive help,

(c) the Secretary of State’s expectations on how frequently a child’s support should be reviewed when they have a child in need plan, and

(d) any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.”

The purpose of this new clause is to reduce regional variations in the type, frequency and duration of support that children receive through child in need plans.

New clause 35—Extension of priority need status to under 25s—

“(1) The Homelessness (Priority Need for Accommodation) (England) Order 2002 is amended as follows.

(2) In article (4), paragraph (1)(a), omit “twenty-one” and insert “twenty-five”.

(3) In article (5), omit paragraph (1).”

This new clause would extend the priority need status under homelessness legislation to all care leavers up to the age of 25, regardless of vulnerability.

New clause 36—Action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to mobile phones and social media—

“(1) Within 12 months of the passing of this Act, the Secretary of State must, for the purposes of promoting the wellbeing of children—

(a) direct the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom (“the UK CMOs”) to prepare and publish advice for parents and carers on the use of smartphones and social media use by children,

(b) publish a plan for research into the impact of use of social media on children’s wellbeing, and

(c) require all schools in England to have a policy that prohibits the use and carrying of certain devices by pupils during the school day.

(2) Any advice published under subsection (1)(a) must have regard to—

(a) the paper published on 7 February 2019 entitled “United Kingdom Chief Medical Officers’ commentary on ‘Screen-based activities and children and young people’s mental health and psychosocial wellbeing: a systematic map of reviews’”, and

(b) any scientific or other developments since the publication of that paper which appear to the UK CMOs to be relevant.

(3) Any policy implemented under subsection (1)(c)—

(a) may provide for exemptions from the policy, or for an alternative policy, for sixth form students, in so far as such exemptions or alternative policies do not negatively impact upon the wider policy;

(b) may provide for exemptions for medical devices;

(c) is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate; and

(d) may, where implemented by a boarding school or residential school, include appropriate guidance for the use of certain devices during other periods which their pupils are on school premises, subject to such policies safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children in accordance with relevant national standards.

(4) For the purposes of this section—

“certain devices” means mobile phones and other devices which provide similar functionality and whose main purpose is not the support of learning or study;

“the Chief Medical Officers of the United Kingdom” means the Chief Medical Officers for—

(a) England,

(b) Wales,

(c) Scotland, and

(d) Northern Ireland

“the school day” includes all time between the start of the first lesson period and the end of the final lesson period.”

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to take action to promote children’s wellbeing in relation to mobile phones and social media by commissioning a report from the Chief Medical Officers and requiring schools to ban the use of mobile telephones during the school day.

New clause 37—Cessation of Child Protection Plans—

“Where proceedings are initiated or a care and supervision order is issued under section 31 of the Children Act 1989, any cessation of child protection plans for children under five years old must be signed off by the relevant Director of Children's Services or Head of Social Work Practice.”

This new clause would mean that the relevant Director of Children's Services or Head of Social Work Practice must sign off any cessation of child protection plans for children under five years old once proceedings have been initiated or once a care and supervision order has been issued.

New clause 43—Automatic enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, introduce a scheme to automatically enrol certain individuals for the purposes of the Healthy Start scheme.

(2) For the purposes of this section, “certain individuals” means people who are eligible for the Healthy Start scheme on the basis of having a child under the age of 4.

(3) The scheme must provide the means for individuals to opt out of enrolment for the Healthy Start scheme.”

New clause 44—Contact with siblings for children in care—

“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 34(1), after paragraph (d) insert—

“(e) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).”

(3) In paragraph 15(1) of Schedule 2, after paragraph (c) insert—

“(d) his siblings (whether of the whole or half blood).””

This new clause would ensure that children in care are allowed reasonable contact with their siblings.

New clause 45—Arrangements for remaining in a residential children’s home after reaching adulthood—

“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.

(2) In section 23CZA (arrangements for certain former relevant children to live with former foster parents), at the end of subsection (2) insert – “or by which a person who is a former relevant child by virtue of section 23C(1)(b) continues to live at the residential children’s home at which they were resident when they were looked after.

(3) In paragraph 19BA in Part 2 of Schedule 2 (local authority support for looked after children)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), after “parent” insert “or in a residential children’s home”;

(b) in sub-paragraph (3)(b), after “parent” insert “or residential children’s home”.’”

This new clause would extend the “staying put” arrangements that currently exist for young people placed with foster parents to those living in a residential children’s home.

New clause 46—Extension of the ban on unregulated accommodation for 16- and 17-year-olds—

“(1) In the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010—

(a) in Regulation 27A (Prohibition on placing a child under 16 in an unregulated setting), for “under 16” substitute “under 18”;

(b) in Regulation 27B (Exception to the prohibition on placing a child under 16 in other arrangements), after paragraph (1), insert—

“(1A) The Secretary of State shall ensure that all accommodation provided to looked after children aged 16 and 17 meets the standards of regulated children’s homes or other regulated supported accommodation.””

(2) In section 22C of the Children Act 1989 (Ways in which looked after children are to be accommodated and maintained), after subsection (6) insert—

“(6A) A local authority must not place a looked after child aged 16 or 17 in unregulated accommodation that does not meet the requirements set out in regulations made under subsection (7).””

New clause 47—Requirement for minimum standards for accommodation provided to 16- and 17-year-olds in care—

“The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament regulations establishing national minimum standards for accommodation provided to 16- and 17-year-olds in care, ensuring—

(a) access to appropriate levels of support and supervision;

(b) safeguarding protections equivalent to those in regulated children’s homes; and

(c) oversight by Ofsted or another appropriate regulatory body.”

New clause 50—Establishment of Child Protection Authority—

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, establish a Child Protection Authority for England.

(2) The purpose of such an Authority will be to—

(a) improve practice in child protection;

(b) provide advice and make recommendations to the Government on child protection policy and reforms to improve child protection;

(c) inspect institutions and settings at some times and in such ways as it considers necessary and appropriate to ensure compliance with child protection standards; and

(d) monitor the implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse and other inquiries relating to the protection of children.

(3) The Authority must act with a view to—

(a) safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children;

(b) ensuring that institutions and settings fulfil their responsibilities in relation to child protection.”

This new clause would seek to fulfil the second recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse in establishing a Child Protection Authority for England.

Amendment 176, in clause 1, page 1, line 7, leave out from start to “in” in line 8 and insert—

“When a local authority starts formal child protection proceedings.”

This amendment would require the offer of a family group decision making meeting when formal child protection proceedings are initiated or when a child protection plan is failing to protect the child, rather than before a local authority makes an application for a care and supervision order.

Amendment 177, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—

“(1A) A family group decision-making meeting must be offered by the relevant local authority when a family is going through private law proceedings.”

This amendment seeks to reduce the conflict in private law proceedings by offering a family group decision making meeting, allow other family members to support the child as well as to identify where there are significant safeguarding risks to the child/children. It would strengthen the intention that mediation and reconciliation out of court are better for the child.

Amendment 178, in clause 1, page 2, line 7, at end insert—

“(5) A family group decision-making meeting must be chaired by a systemic family therapist or other similarly qualified professional.”

This amendment would require family group decision-making meetings to be chaired by a family therapist or other professional with equivalent qualifications. Particularly in cases involving domestic abuse, including coercion and control, it is essential that the FGDP has the expertise to manage this and protect the child/children.

Amendment 172, in clause 1, page 2, leave out lines 21 to 26 and insert—

“(8) The child in relation to whom the family group decision-making meeting is held should be supported to attend all or part of the meeting if they wish to do so, unless the local authority determines this not to be in the best interests of the child, in which instance efforts should be made to ensure their views are represented.

(9) In exercising functions under this section in relation to a child, the local authority must, so far as is reasonably practicable and consistent with the child’s welfare—

(a) ascertain the child’s wishes and feelings; and

(b) give due consideration (having regard to the child’s age and understanding) to such wishes and feelings of the child as they have been able to ascertain.”

This amendment would require a local authority to ascertain a child’s wishes and feelings regarding all aspects of family group decision-making, to give those views due consideration, and to support the child to participate in family group decision-making meetings where appropriate.

Amendment 179, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(10) If a child is to be looked after by other family members as a result of the family group decision-making meeting, the local authority must make arrangements to ensure the safety and welfare of the child and prepare a child protection plan that reflects this.”

This amendment would ensure that if a child is going to be looked after by other family members, the local authority takes appropriate action, that is reflected in the child protection plan, to assure their safety and welfare.

Amendment 180, in clause 1, page 2, line 26, at end insert—

“(10) If the child is under the age of two, the family group decision-making conference must not delay the timetable for the making of permanent arrangements regarding the child’s care.”

This amendment is designed to ensure that the offer of a family group decision-making meeting does not unduly delay making permanent arrangements regarding the child’s care

Government amendment 111.

Amendment 181, in clause 4, page 6, line 25, at end insert—

“(4A) Where the relevant person considers that the disclosure would be more detrimental to the child than not disclosing the information, this decision must be recorded.”

This amendment requires decisions made not to disclose information to be recorded.

Government amendment 112.

Amendment 182, in clause 4, page 6, line 37, at end insert—

“(6A) Where information is disclosed under this section, the recipient must consider the safety and welfare of others to whom the information may relate or involve and take steps to promote their safety and welfare, particularly in cases of domestic abuse or elder abuse.”

This amendment seeks to ensure that other vulnerable members of a household are not inadvertently put at risk by the sharing of information, and that safety plans are put in place where needed.

Government amendments 113 to 116.

Amendment 174, in clause 5, page 9, line 31, at end insert—

“(8) A kinship local offer published under subsection (5) must state when it will next be reviewed.

(9) Any review of a kinship local offer conducted by a local authority under subsection (7) must involve the participation of children and families.”

This amendment would ensure that kinship families are actively engaged in shaping the support available to them, and that local authorities are held accountable for delivering their obligations.

Amendment 183, in clause 5, page 9, line 31, at end insert—

“(8) In fulfilling its duties under subsection (7) a local authority must annually consult and collect feedback from children in kinship care and their carers about its kinship local offer.

(9) Feedback received under subsection (8) must be published annually.”

This amendment would require local authorities to consult children and carers when assessing their kinship care offer.

Amendment 184, in clause 7, page 12, line 8, at end insert—

“(3A) Where staying close support is provided, it must be provided with due regard to the wishes of the relevant person and a record must be kept of that person’s wishes.”

This amendment would require local authorities to take account of the wishes of the relevant young person when providing staying close support, and keep a record of those wishes.

Amendment 186, in clause 11, page 16, line 18, at end insert—

“(1AA) A child who is being looked after by a local authority in England and is under the age of 13 may not, whilst being kept in relevant accommodation in England, be deprived of their liberty in that accommodation unless this has been authorised by the Secretary of State.”

This amendment would ensure that deprivation of liberty orders could not be issued to children under the age of 13 unless expressly authorised by the Secretary of State, in line with provisions relating to children’s homes.

Amendment 187, in clause 11, page 16, line 25, at end insert—

“(1C) The Secretary of State must review a deprivation of liberty order every 4 weeks to ensure that is appropriate for the order to remain in place.”

This amendment would require a review of deprivation of liberty orders to ensure that they remain appropriate for the relevant child.

Amendment 185, in clause 11, page 17, line 10, at end insert—

“(8A) After subsection (9) insert—

“(10) Where a child is kept in secure accommodation under this section, the relevant local authority has a duty to provide therapeutic treatment for the child.””

This amendment would place a duty on local authorities to provide therapeutic treatment for children subject to a deprivation of liberty order.

Government amendment 117.

Amendment 188, in clause 12, page 17, delete from line 21 to line 17 on page 21 and insert—

“23A Requirement for inspection

(1) The CIECSS may order an inspection of a parent undertaking, or any of its subsidiaries, if it has–

(a) a subsidiary undertaking which meets the requirements of subsection (2), or

(b) two or more subsidiary undertakings which meet the requirements of subsection (3).

(2) A subsidiary undertaking meets the requirements of this subsection if–

(a) the subsidiary undertaking is registered under this Part as carrying on two or more establishments or agencies for which the CIECSS is the registration authority, and

(b) the CIECSS reasonably suspects that there are grounds for cancelling the subsidiary undertaking’s registration in respect of two or more of those establishments or agencies.

(3) A subsidiary undertaking meets the requirements of this subsection if–

(a) the subsidiary undertaking is registered under this Part as carrying on one or more establishments or agencies for which the CIECSS is the registration authority, and

(b) the CIECSS reasonably suspects that there are grounds for cancelling the subsidiary undertaking’s registration in respect of one or more of those establishments or agencies.”

This amendment would require an inspection if the CIECSS believes that are reasons to cancel a children’s home registration, rather than issue an improvement plan notice.

Amendment 189, in clause 12, page 18, line 6, at end insert—

“(3A) The CIECSS may require an unannounced visit by Regulation 44 visitor to a children’s home, if it reasonably suspects that there are administrative breaches or minor concerns about the quality of care being provided.

(3B) After Regulation 44 visitors have inspected the relevant children’s home or homes, the local authority may issue an improvement plan notice based on their findings.”

This amendment would rely on the use of Regulation 44 visitors to inform the content of an improvement plan notice where the CIECSS has concerns about minor or technical breaches.

Government amendment 118.

Amendment 171, in clause 15, page 29, line 18, at end insert—

“(c) independent schools with caring responsibilities and offering SEND provision.”

This amendment would include independent special schools within the profit cap provision.

Government amendments 119 to 131.

Government new schedule 1—Relevant authorities.

[Stephen Morgan]

I start by thanking all hon. and right hon. Members for their valuable contributions during the passage of the Bill to date, and in particular, members of the Public Bill Committee for providing substantial debate and scrutiny.

The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a landmark Bill and a key piece of legislation that will enable us to deliver the Government’s opportunity mission and our determination to break the link between people’s background and their future success. It will protect children from abuse, it will stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks in services and it will deliver a core guarantee of high standards with space for innovation in every child’s education. It will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout education and throughout children’s social care so that every child can achieve and thrive.

Reforming children’s social care is critical to giving hundreds of thousands of children and young people the start in life that they deserve. Our approach to reform will break down barriers by shifting the focus of the children’s social care system to early support to keep families together. We will ensure that children can remain with their families where appropriate, support more children to live with kinship carers or in fostering families and fix the broken care market to tackle profiteering and put children’s needs first.

The previous Government bequeathed to us a bitter inheritance of not only child poverty across great swathes of our country, which affected one in three, or even one in two, of our young people, not just record numbers of children out of school or not turning up to school, not merely a children’s social care system at breaking point, but—bitterest of all—a fiscal blackhole. That blackhole must be tackled to get this country’s finances and future back on track, but it limits the speed at which we can deliver the ambition that all Labour Members have for a brighter future for Britain’s children.

Let me speak to our Government amendments. New clauses 18 to 22 introduce corporate parenting duties for Departments and relevant public bodies. A previous Labour Prime Minister observed, following Tawney:

“What a wise parent would wish for their children, so the state must wish for all its children.”

That principle lies behind the change that these new clauses seek to bring today, as we ensure that across the public sector we recognise the moral and necessary obligation to do all we can to level the playing field for children in care and care leavers. This group of young people faces significant disadvantages. Twenty-six per cent. of the homeless population are care-experienced, and around a quarter of the adult prison population were in care as children. Care leavers aged 19 to 21 are over three times more likely not to be in education, employment or training than their peers.

New clause 18 introduces corporate parenting responsibilities for Departments and the relevant public bodies, referred to as “relevant authorities”, listed in new schedule 1. New corporate parents will need to be alert to the needs of children in care and care leavers and assess the services or support they provide that are available to them. They will also need to provide them with the opportunities to participate in activities designed to promote their wellbeing or enhance their employment prospects.

--- Later in debate ---

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

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

I want to concentrate today on our new clause 36, which would ban phones from our schools. The new clause would also write into law some of the content of the very good private Member’s Bill drafted by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), because this does not need to be a party political issue.

When I was on the Science and Technology Committee back in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Back then, the evidence was already very concerning, but by now every alarm bell should be ringing. Over the last decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world, over the exact same period that smartphones and social media have become dominant in children’s lives. The growth in mental health problems is focused almost entirely on young people, not older people. Children now get smartphones at a very early age. As the Education Committee pointed out in a good report last year, one in five of the UK’s three and four-year-olds now has their own smartphone. By the end of primary school, four out of five kids have a smartphone.

There are many different ways in which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. They displace time in the real world with friends. US data, for example, shows that prior to 2012 children spent over two hours a day with friends, but that had halved by 2019. The proportion of children feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world. But smartphones are not just a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Children are tired in school, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip feed users dopamine.

At a recent school meeting that I organised in my constituency, I heard from local doctors about how excessive screen time is damaging eyesight and giving young kids the kind of back problems that one might expect from someone in late middle age. Eight out of 10 children are exposed to violent porn before the age of 18, many at a really young age. The average age at which kids see porn is now 13. The shift to a smartphone-based childhood is also leading children to be exposed to graphic violence, sextortion and self-harm encouragement, and is doing terrible things to girls’ self-image. According to the Office for National Statistics, one in five children aged 10 to 15 says they have been bullied online, and 72% of that is happening during school time.

As well as being bad in their own right, these negative effects come together to damage education. Although a ban of phones in schools cannot fix everything, it is a vital first step and can make a big difference in itself. I spoke to one headteacher who said that when they went from a policy of phones not being out to a full, “start of the day to end of the day” ban, with phones being handed in, the number of detentions they had to hand out fell by 40%, and teacher recruitment and retention improved, too.

--- Later in debate ---

A pattern is emerging. At the start of the debates on the Bill, we and many in the education profession pointed out that the Bill would threaten to cut teacher pay, but the Education Secretary said that that was not true and we did not understand. However, she was later forced to produce pages and pages of amendments to her own Bill, and it turned out that it was not us who did not understand the legislation. Last summer, Michael Gove was being held up by the Secretary of State as the great Satan of education, but in her most recent speech, he has become a “great education reformer”. Just weeks ago, banning smartphones from our schools was a “gimmick”, but over the weekend we learned from the Secretary of State that they have “no place” in our schools. So the policy is a “gimmick”, but they have “no place” in our schools, although they are going to vote against a ban today—I think we can all see where this is going. Tonight, Labour Members should swallow their pride, vote for our new clause and do the right thing for our children.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clauses 3 and 4, which both stand in my name.

The Education Committee was afforded little time to undertake scrutiny of this important Bill, but we worked hard to do so, refocusing our ongoing inquiry on children’s social care to focus on part 1 of the Bill and holding an additional evidence session to look at part 2. I am grateful to all the witnesses who came to give us their evidence.

We have published a report for the Secretary of State setting out recommendations based on the evidence we received. Broadly, the Committee welcomes the scale of the Government’s ambition as expressed in the Bill, which is a key plank of the Government’s opportunity mission to break the link between young people’s background and their future success. We join the Government in wanting to see high and rising standards in our education and care systems to protect vulnerable children and ensure educational opportunity for every child.

We welcome the measures in the Bill to strengthen child protection, particularly the provisions to establish multi-agency child protection teams, including education in safeguarding arrangements and a single unique identifier for children, which has the potential to be genuinely transformative for the delivery of many of the services that support children and young people. We support the measures to improve the children’s social care market through regional commissioning and a financial oversight scheme. Action to remove profiteering in the children’s social care sector is long overdue.

The Committee welcomes the measures in the Bill that will enable more children to remain within their kinship network or, where a residential placement in kinship care is not possible, in contact with family and friends.

The Committee also made some recommendations on ways in which the Bill could be strengthened, based on the evidence we received. The amendments tabled in my name relate directly to our recommendations, and I will now turn to each recommendation that is relevant to part 1 of the Bill.

New clause 3 would require the Government to publish and consult on a draft national offer for care leavers within 18 months of the Bill coming into force. A national care offer would set minimum standards for local care offers and ensure greater consistency between local authority areas. A national offer would act as a floor, not a ceiling. It would not be designed to prevent innovation at a local level or to stop additional commitments being made by individual local authorities, but we believe that greater national consistency, driven by Government, would make a big difference.

The evidence of the unacceptably poor outcomes for care-experienced young people is shocking. Some 39% of care leavers aged 19 to 21 are not in education, employment or training, compared with 13% of all young people in the same age group. Some 14% of young people with care experience go to university, compared with almost half of their peers, and care leavers are 38% more likely to drop out of university. A third of care leavers become homeless within two years of leaving care, and 25% of homeless people have been in care. Care leavers are hugely over-represented in the criminal justice system. These are young people whose corporate parent has been the state, and these statistics are clear evidence that for many of them, the state is not a very good parent.

I welcome the Government’s amendment of the Bill to introduce additional corporate parenting responsibilities, but the Committee heard that there is significant disparity in the support that different local authorities offer to care leavers. We heard about the differences in support with bursaries to pay for university accommodation, access to wi-fi to be able to study and ringfenced apprenticeships for care leavers in local authorities.

In a powerful evidence session in which the Committee heard from young adults with recent experience of the care system, one witness told us that

“there needs to be a national offer for care leavers. The postcode lottery is profound”.

Another pointed to a lack of awareness of the needs of care-experienced people across the wider network of public services. She told us that

“when I had gone to the jobcentres they were very ill-prepared. They did not know any support for care leavers. There were certain grants I could have had to get back into education; they did not inform me, in fact, everything that I have done now is from me Googling it…or asking people. That should not be the case.”

A national care offer would be the foundation for building better, more consistent support for care leavers everywhere in the country. It would provide the Government with an effective mechanism for holding local authorities to account on the quality of their provision, making it much easier for care-experienced people to understand what support should be there for them and stopping the current disincentive to leave home to go to university because of uncertainty about the support when they get there. I urge the Government to support new clause 3.

New clause 4 would require health assessments of children in the care system to include assessment by a mental health practitioner. It would make assessing the mental health of children in care a core part of the health assessment of those children by ensuring that a mental health practitioner is involved. Children in care are significantly more likely to have experienced trauma and abuse than their peers, and they are consequently more likely to experience mental ill health. In 2021, 45% of children in care had a mental health disorder—rising to 72% among those in residential care—compared with 10% of all children aged five to 15.

The care-experienced young adults who gave powerful evidence to the Committee spoke strongly about the urgent need for better mental health support and suggested that local authorities are not always fulfilling their obligations to include emotional and mental health in their health assessments of children in care. One of our witnesses told us:

“Growing up it was only physical assessments; we did not have mental health check-ins at all…I think if my mental health was taken more seriously from a young age, if I had that person to check-in with me…I would probably be so much better. I would not have mental health problems growing up. I do think that mental health check-ins are equally as important—if not more important—as physical check-ins for children in care.”

Another witness said that

“looked-after children should get mandatory assessments, as with physical health. Also, if they are referred to CAMHS the waitlists are horrific right now…looked-after children should have fast tracks and there should be more funding for specialist teams.”

We heard very movingly from a witness who spoke about the need for more trauma-informed training for foster carers and other professionals working with children in care. She said:

“I feel a lot could be explained if they understood the experience of trauma. It will take time. It will not go away at night, and sometimes before it gets better it could get worse. No one talks about that. You will not be okay if you are going into care; there is a reason why you are there, and so it is important that the minute you go into care every child should have a mandatory assessment, physical and mental, and there should be that on-call support for them”.

It is the trauma that underlies the decision to take a child into care—the abuse, neglect, bereavement or exploitation—that often has the most profound impact on their lives. Our care system needs to place dealing with that trauma in a child-centred way at its heart. Ensuring that mental health assessments are properly undertaken is an essential requirement of such a system, because mental health must be assessed before treatment and support can be provided. New clause 4 would help to deliver that badly needed refocusing of the system, and I urge the Government to support it.

I wish to make two further points. First, I support new clause 14, which stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). It would introduce a requirement to notify a child’s school and GP when they are placed in temporary accommodation. As a constituency MP in south-east London, I see the horrific impact of poor-quality, unstable temporary accommodation on children in my constituency every week. Temporary accommodation is harming children, whether through the sleep deprivation of having to get up at 4 am to travel a long distance to their school, the lack of space to do homework, the fear and insecurity of sharing a kitchen and bathroom with strangers, the physical health impacts of living with damp and mould, or the impacts on gross motor development of being in a space that is too small to crawl or play in.

The impacts are profound, so it is completely right that there should be a statutory requirement to notify the public services that have the ability to help mitigate such impacts, and which have a responsibility for a child’s health and wellbeing when that child is placed in temporary accommodation. The Government should be taking urgent action to reduce the number of people in temporary accommodation, especially families with children. However, in the short term, the new duty introduced by my hon. Friend’s new clause would make a difference to the support those children receive.

Finally, at the same time as we are debating this Bill, the Government are preparing to announce reforms to the welfare system. I wish to emphasise the vital importance of considering the impact on children of any proposed reforms. Children do not get to choose the families into which they are born, but each one is equally deserving of economic security and access to the resources they need to thrive. It is not a justifiable outcome of changes to the welfare system to make life harder for the poorest children, or to increase child poverty by limiting the access to support that their parents receive. The Government must undertake and publish an assessment of the impact of their welfare reforms on children, and must ensure that children do not suffer as a result of any planned reforms.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure and a privilege to rise to speak on part 1 of the Bill, and in particular on the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name.

When the Bill had its Second Reading, I said that there was much in it that Liberal Democrat Members welcomed, alongside areas that we would seek to amend, probe and strengthen. Its progress in recent weeks has seen plenty of debate, discussion and opportunities to constructively strengthen the legislation, although the Government have failed to accept any amendments that were not their own, despite the Minister’s comments in his opening speech. I am grateful to colleagues from across the House who served on the Committee, in which we had some excellent debates. However, I was disappointed last week to see the sheer number of amendments tabled by the Government ahead of Report. I really hope that the Government do not make a habit of depriving Committees of their chance to properly scrutinise Bills, even if most of those measures are welcome and uncontroversial.

Turning to the new clauses and amendments that stand in my name, as the Minister knows, care—particularly kinship care—is a subject that is close to my heart and those of my Liberal Democrat colleagues. In Committee, we discussed a number of encouraging provisions that are included in the Bill, including those dealing with the definition of kinship care, setting out in law the support that kinship carers are eligible for, and providing additional educational support for children in kinship care.

However, what we agreed in Committee falls far short of the ambition that I heard the Secretary of State herself set out at a reception for kinship carers just a few months ago. At that reception, the Secretary of State—unusually for somebody in her position—called on campaigners and policymakers to keep pushing her. I believe that new clauses 25, 26, 27 and 28, which stand in my name, do just that. New clause 25 would ensure that kinship carers are entitled to paid employment leave; new clause 26 would put into statute an entitlement to an allowance on par with that of foster carers; new clause 27 would extend the pupil premium plus to all children in kinship care, based on the definition that is in the Bill; and new clause 28 would prioritise those same children for school admissions.

Kinship carers are unsung heroes, often stepping up at no notice to look after a child they are related to or know because that child’s parents can no longer do so. Time and again, we hear from kinship carers that they want to do the right thing out of love for those family members, but financial and other barriers often stand in their way. One survey revealed that 45% of kinship carers give up work, and a similar proportion have to reduce their hours permanently, putting financial strain on the family. These carers are disproportionately women, and they are over-represented in the healthcare, education and social care sectors, so this issue simply exacerbates our workforce crisis in public services.

In Committee, the Minister pointed to the kinship financial allowance pilots, which ran in a tiny number of local authorities and involved a very small subset of kinship carers. That was not ambitious enough. We must go further and give kinship carers parity with foster carers. That will help save money in the short and long term.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alistair Strathern]

I thank my hon. Friend, who could not have put my next point better.

I completely recognise that this is a really important topic—it is important for parents and schools right across my constituency, too—but I am afraid the idea that, having had 14 years to bring this forward, the Conservatives have suddenly had a damascene conversion to the idea that this is something that cannot wait and must be delivered now, at a time when there is not a clear consensus among educational professionals or parents about the best way to bring such a ban into effect, feels disingenuous at best. I share lots of their concerns and, over time, I hope to be able work across this House to bring forward good protections to that effect. What I simply will not do is indulge this attempt to turn the issue into an opportunity for the Conservative party to posture, because it had so long and did so little on this work.

In conclusion, I am very glad to be supporting a Bill that delivers step changes in protections for young people, steps changes in support for care leavers and a step change in support for kinship carers. For too long, we have not done enough to look after some of the most vulnerable young people in our society, and I am glad that this Bill and some of the Government amendments underline our commitment to ensuring that we do far better on this front than the last Government did.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I urge Members to ensure that they keep their language respectful at all times.

[Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)]

I rise to speak to clause 9 and the important issue of looked-after children, which I think Members from across the House care about greatly. It is for that reason that the Bill is so disappointing, because there are missed opportunities on supply and demand, and particularly on my concern—I represent a rural constituency with cheaper housing—about the concentration of looked-after children in particular communities, which the Bill’s regional commissioning fails to address sufficiently.

I will take those issues in order, starting with supply. In Committee there was a lot of discussion about profiteering, and I am sure the Minister will respond to my pointing out that the Bill is silent on addressing the real and probably shared issue of how we boost supply by pivoting to talk of the profit clawback. My concern about the profit clawback is that when the Minister comes to claw back the money, he will find that it has long since moved. It would perhaps be helpful if the Minister could clarify the estimate that has been given to the Treasury for how much the Department expects to recover in clawback, because the Opposition suspect that it will not be particularly effective.

Likewise, there are missed opportunities in the Bill for reducing demand, and I very much echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston (Neil O’Brien) in Committee about boosting foster carers—an issue that is frequently debated in this House. I accept that is not a panacea for all the issues affecting looked-after children, particularly those needing secure accommodation, but one would have expected the Bill to go further in that regard.

It is also the case that what the Government are doing about unaccompanied child migrants is further exacerbating demand. I draw the Minister’s attention to the 2023 Home Office research, which shows a massive increase not only in the number of unaccompanied child migrants, but in the number of disputed cases where people claimed to be children when there was concern that they were adults. In half of those cases—49%—the individual was found to be an adult. That is further stoking demand, and it is very regrettable that the Government are not taking action and, indeed, are reversing some of the safeguards put in place by the previous Government to reduce demand. Again, clause 9 is silent on those issues.

Given that I represent a rural community, my third and main concern is that regional commissioning risks being further detached from local communities where there is cheap housing, and where there is therefore a temptation to further concentrate looked-after children, in a way that does not join across the Government’s silos with areas such as police funding and housing. I will give the House a specific example. Because Cambridgeshire has had significant population growth but the police funding is based on the population in 2012—that is how the police grant is calculated—commissioning does not pick up the additional pressures that the Cambridgeshire force is facing, particularly in its rural communities. Those pressures are exacerbated where we have looked-after children with a troubled history interacting with the criminal justice system, and where there are challenges around unaccompanied child migrants.

Nothing in this Bill says how regional commissioning interplays with the formula for police funding, even though the data I have from Cambridgeshire police is very clear that a significant proportion of their time is spent as a consequence of this policy. An example of that are the requirements on the police when a child goes missing, which is rightly an issue of significant concern. Of course that is something for which the police should prioritise time, but having a concentration of care homes in rural communities can require significant additional resource.

Clause 9 fails to address supply and demand. What will be done about the fact that it is further divorced from the rural communities where commissioning is often placed? Given that the Government are hammering rural communities in so many areas—not least farming—how will they reassure my constituents in Fenland that the failure of the money to follow looked-after children sufficiently is going to be addressed?

I will finish with one example from the recent data coming from councils. The Home Office reimburses councils for their spending on children under 18, at a rate of between £114 and £143 a day. On 15 February this year, councils reported that the payments from central Government do not cover all the costs. The risk is that rural communities, which have been hammered by this Government on farming and in so many other areas, will have to pick up the police costs, the health service impacts and the other impacts on public services that come from more distant regional commissioners, which is exactly what clause 9 risks doing. It would be helpful if the Minister could say a little bit more about that when he comes to close the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak on this important Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill.

I wish to focus my attention on two new clauses. First, I am calling my new clause 33 Sara’s law, after Sara Sharif, my murdered constituent. This comes out of the findings of the recent review conducted by the Children’s Commissioner. I thank the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and others that have suggested a raft of great changes to the Bill when it comes to improving how we look after children in the UK. The list is never-ending, with so many great contributions from many.

Given what happened to Sara Sharif, we know that the system is not protecting vulnerable children as it should. It failed her, so I am hoping to untie that fundamental knot in the children’s social care system. The sad reality is that the level of support a child receives too often depends not on their needs, but on where they live and the thresholds the council has for stepping in and saving a child from abuse and neglect.

There is an unacceptable inequality in how local authorities interpret thresholds for an intervention under section 17 of the Children Act 1989. That means children at risk in one council area may receive early help and intervention if a family is in crisis, yet in another they are left without the intervention that could protect them, if not save their life. Every child in this country has in effect been entered into a postcode lottery, and we are gambling with their lives by not attempting to repair that flaw.

We need to look at the devastating case of Sara to understand the consequences of having a system that lacks consistency and clear national standards. I do not think we can put a price on a child’s life and decide to step in only on the basis of resources, but that is how the current system works. It is clear that social services over the years have struggled with deep cuts to funding and services, and the Liberal Democrats and I are not yet confident that the new Government will fully fund local authorities.

Sara was just 10 years old when she was brutally murdered after, sadly, years of torture and slavery at the hands of those who were supposed to love her. She was known to social services, yet the response was not sufficient to protect her. Would clearer national guidance with stronger thresholds for intervention have made a difference? In my opinion, yes. Would automatic referrals such as those proposed in this new clause have ensured that professionals had the opportunity to intervene before it was too late? In my view, yes.

New clause 33 calls for a review of the variation in the support that children in need receive across the country, and critically, it requires the Government to establish national standards for when and how children should receive help. It sets out clear triggers for automatic referral to children’s social care, such as when a primary caregiver enters custody or becomes an in-patient for mental healthcare, or when a child is arrested. There are moments of profound instability for a child in such cases, yet without clear national standards and a proactive approach, too many slip through the cracks.

My constituent Sara slipped through the cracks. In January, when I asked the Prime Minister if he would call for an inquiry into the failings of the state surrounding the death of Sara, he said the Government would look into it, but we are still waiting for him to update the House. The proposed changes would set expectations about how frequently a child’s situation should be reviewed. Cases like Sara’s remind us that it is not enough to assess a child once and then step away; their needs must be updated and reviewed regularly. The risks can escalate quickly. There are warning signs and if regular checks are not in place, intervention comes too late with morbid consequences.

New clause 33 is about accountability, consistency and, most importantly, protection. We cannot continue to accept a system where a child’s safety depends on geography and resource rather than need. I think MPs from across the House, particularly Government Members, have a moral duty to protect vulnerable children and there are so many children out there who are still in danger. I hope new clause 33 is accepted. If it is not, I hope the Government will consider it in the other place.

I wish to draw the House’s attention to new clause 8, which has been referred to, tabled by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). It ensures that corporal punishment cannot be used as a defence in court if it is being used to hide grievous harm to a child. It is not about preventing parents from reasonably reprimanding their children; it is about closing a legal loophole that abusers have regularly used or attempted to use to evade justice. We saw it in the case of Sara, whose father Urfan sought to use such a defence to avoid accountability for the terrible suffering tantamount to torture—that is what the judge said—that he inflicted. No child should endure such brutality. No perpetrator should be able to hide behind awful outdated legal justifications.

We should standardise child protection in this country and close the loopholes that currently exist that abusers can exploit. The Bill, if correctly amended, gives us the chance to do that. Let us take that opportunity and protect vulnerable children.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Very powerful indeed.

[Jess Asato (Lowestoft) (Lab)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 8 in my name, which has the support of many colleagues across the House and organisations including the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, Barnardo’s, the NSPCC and the Children’s Commissioner for England. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and for Woking (Mr Forster) for their comments in today’s debate.

New clause 8 would amend section 58 of the Children Act 2004 to remove the “reasonable punishment” defence that permits assault and battery on children by parents and carers. Children in Scotland and Wales already have the same protections as adults when it comes to being hit, but we find ourselves in the peculiar situation where a child growing up just over the border in England has fewer rights. Why should they? What is the difference between a child growing up in Berwick-upon-Tweed and a child in Bonnyrigg? Scotland and Wales are not alone: 67 countries around the world have already banned physical punishment—Tajikistan last year became the latest—and 27 others have also committed to a ban. There is a global recognition that children deserve better. Indeed, as part of the UK’s commitment to the 16th Sustainable Development Goal, we have already pledged to end all violence against children, and that includes physical punishment in the home. The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has stated unequivocally that protection from physical punishment is a basic human right of a child.

Physical punishment is not punishment; it is abuse. We have a wealth of research to draw on from the last 30 years, and not a single reputable study has found that physical punishment positively impacts children’s development. There is no evidence to show that it improves behaviour in children. The reality is that physical punishment does not establish in a child’s mind a difference between right and wrong; it simply evokes fear—a fear of violence and pain. We know that children who are physically punished are at a far higher risk of experiencing maltreatment and abuse by parents, because over time parents may feel the need to escalate and inflict more and more pain to elicit the same response. A 16-year-old girl told Childline:

“When I was younger and misbehaved, my mum gave me a warning and put me on the naughty step. Then when I got to five to 12 years old, it was a tap or a little smack. But now it can be a proper smack, or there was one occasion where she pulled my hair and I fell to the floor and she continuously hit me. I don’t want to get mum in trouble, but I can’t carry on being afraid of her.”

Studies have also found that physical punishment leads to higher levels of aggression directed against parents by their children. Violence begets violence, and teaching children from a young age that violence is an acceptable way of channelling stress and frustration has consequences for all of us in society. It also has a pronounced impact on the children themselves. We know from research conducted by the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that children who are physically punished are almost three times more likely to experience mental health problems than those who are not. We know that physical punishment of children is linked to substance misuse, antisocial behaviour and slower cognitive development. While the majority of parents do not use physical punishment and its use is declining, more than one in five 10-year-olds have still experienced it.

New clause 8 is not about criminalising parents. No one wants to stop a parent from protecting their child who is about to reach for a hot kettle or cross a busy road. Of the many countries that have introduced a ban, there has been no evidence that it has led to an increase in prosecutions. Instead, changing the law is about giving parents, children and professionals clarity, while improving the toolbox parents have to positively raise their child. New clause 8 removes the ambiguity created by the “reasonable punishment” defence and will allow children and adults to come forward more readily to report abuse. A clearer legal framework also makes it easier for professionals like social workers to do their jobs in the best interests of children.

New clause 8 will not, on its own, be able to stop cases like Sara Sharif’s, but it will certainly ensure that the threat of violence many children face will no longer be given the pretence of legal cover. We cannot afford to delay action. The NSPCC has seen a threefold increase in the number of child welfare calls mentioning physical punishment in the past couple of years. We need to act now to ban physical punishment, so we can ensure that children can grow up free from abuse and harm, something I know is a priority for this Government and is the purpose of the Bill in front of us.

Evidence from other countries shows us that bans work. In Germany, for example, the percentage of young people subjected to physical punishment fell from 30% to 3% after it introduced a ban in 2002. Given that 71% of adults believe that physical punishment is unacceptable, it seems to me that sooner or later we will have to change the law. My challenge with new clause 8 is: why not sooner? Why do we not commit to ending this abuse today? Children will not thank us for waiting. Future generations will not look kindly on our inaction, nor should they. We have the evidence, the power and the time. We have the ability to act and we should to protect all our children.

Mental Health Support: Educational Settings

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I think eight Members are hoping to contribute. We will calibrate again. There will be a time limit of four minutes, because I want to make sure they all get in.

[Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)]

I thank the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing this debate and for talking about the importance of these programmes, and for mentioning anti-bullying programmes as well. I also thank the other hon. Members who have spoken about the wider mental health crisis and the extent to which teachers are picking up the pieces —these are all vital issues to talk about.

I am proud to say there has been some groundbreaking work on mental health support in educational settings in my constituency. A campaign led by young people and backed by Citizens UK secured funding for more counselling capacity in local schools, and is a genuine cause of city-wide pride. The £200,000 of investment from Brighton and Hove city council will support hundreds of young people with counselling across the city, including many in my constituency. I was very inspired by the work of the students pressing the councils for this support—notably Fi Abou-Chanad and Tally Wilcox, who put their case directly to the council—and spoke about them in my maiden speech. I am grateful to Brighton and Hove city council, which backed up its words with funds to support this vital work, and I am pleased that, following the pilot, it will now fund 2025-56 as well.

The key request now from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy and Citizens UK is for Government-funded school counselling provision delivered by specialist children and young people counsellors and psychotherapists on a statutory basis. I welcome the pledges from the Government to introduce a mental health professional accessible in every school, and I hope we will see real investment in a national school counselling programme promised by Ministers today.

To conclude, I once again thank the hon. Member for Redditch for securing this debate, and once again pay tribute to the courage and campaigning of the young people who I know are out there all around the country, in all our constituencies, demanding support. Nothing could be of more value or more importance than investing in the thriving of the mental health of our young people, and particularly in schools.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Thank you so much for keeping well within the time limit. I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sojan Joseph]

I agree, and I have many similar cases. I want to refer some real-life examples. There is an excellent exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall this week about the Mental Health Act, which has been put together by Mind. It features artwork and written pieces by people who have been detained under the current Act. I had the pleasure of meeting some of them on Monday, including a young lady called Afeefa. Afeefa is 19 but was first detained under the Act when she was 14. She spoke powerfully and movingly about the treatment that she endured while she was under section. When I asked her if there was one thing that could have helped her, she said without hesitation that if she had received mental health support at an earlier stage, her experience would have been very different.

I recall two examples from my experience of working in mental health system that demonstrate the difference that early intervention and support can make. They are of two young people of similar age: one is a teenage boy, who unfortunately has not been able to access the support he needs and, as a result, is struggling to cope. That is not only impacting on his mental health but is having a detrimental impact on his family, especially his parents.

By contrast, in the second case, the parents of a teenage girl who had been diagnosed with a mental health condition knew that I worked in mental health at the time and came to see me. I was able to ensure that she was referred to CAMHS at an early stage. As a result, both she and her parents are doing well. She is due to sit her A-levels in the summer. These examples underline how children who receive support quickly are less likely to develop long-term conditions that negatively affect their education, social development and health later in life.

I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education has been clear that children’s wellbeing will be a priority for this Government. Research from the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy indicates that children whose mental health difficulties are initially too complex for lower intensity interventions, but not complex enough to be referred to higher intensity interventions such as CAMHS, can easily miss out on the mental health support that they need. Ensuring enough mental health support for children and young people in educational settings will help to free up NHS time and resources, while making sure that we have a healthy and productive population in the future.

We should also make sure that support exists in the community. Can the Minister provide an update on the Government’s plans for Young Futures hubs? Does he agree that open access drop-in hubs could be an important step in providing community-based mental health support for children and young people?

There is clear evidence that the places and circumstances in which people are born grow, study, live and work have a powerful influence on their mental health. As Place2Be has said, children and young people from low-income families are four times more likely to experience mental health problems than children from higher income families, while one in four children and young people with a diagnosed mental health condition live in a household that has experienced a reduction in household income. This is why I want reform of the way that we deal with mental health. From Westminster, I would like greater cross-Government working to address the social detriments of our mental health. At a local level, I believe that greater co-operation between schools, colleges and universities, along with local health providers and others in the local community, can help create education settings that are effective at protecting young people’s mental health and general wellbeing. Taking that long-term approach will help create a society that prevents mental ill health for children and young people in the first place.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Due to the number of withdrawals, Members may have noticed that we have stopped the clocks timing speeches. There are two colleagues left, and I will allow you to police yourselves. Members on the Front Benches want to be up by 4.30 pm, so I will let you manage the time between yourselves.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Milne]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In my speech, I referred to West Sussex county council but neglected to mention that, as declared in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I am still a member of that council. I want to put that on the record—my apologies.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Now that he has put it on the record, it will be recorded as such.

We come now to the Front-Bench contributions. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing this incredibly important debate. I have spent much of the past five and a bit years in this place talking about children’s mental health, which, frankly, I do not think we can ever have enough debate about. It is so incredibly important.

We have heard many statistics from hon. Members today, to which I will add. OECD evidence, based on a survey of 15-year-olds, shows that UK students have the lowest reported wellbeing in western Europe. In 2024, the Children’s Society found that the happiness of UK children aged 10 to 15 was at its lowest since recording began in 2009-10. As we have heard, NHS reporting shows that a staggering one in five children—six in every classroom, on average—have a mental health disorder.

I would argue that it is not an exaggeration to say that we are heading towards a public health emergency as far as our children’s mental health is concerned. Yet, as is so often the case, children and mental health are both overlooked and low down on the priority list. The Darzi report highlighted that children account for 24% of the population but only 11 % of NHS expenditure. The latest evidence from Rethink Mental Illness states that people who need mental health are treatment eight times more likely to have to wait over 18 months than those seeking treatment for physical health. Despite that, the Government’s targets to bring down NHS waiting times exclude mental health. Given that more than 100,000 children are waiting for over a year to be assessed for mental health treatment, it is clear that children have been deprioritised, but as I have said repeatedly in this place, putting money into services that support children is the greatest investment we can make as a country. When budgets are tight, support for child and adolescent mental health should not be pushed aside.

I do not think it an exaggeration to call the situation a public health emergency. In public health, prevention and early intervention are absolutely key. That is where the role of schools, colleges and universities comes in. As we have heard, half of lifetime mental health conditions arise before the age of 14, so ensuring that mental health support is available in schools, from primary upwards, is a critical intervention. The Liberal Democrats have long called for a mental health practitioner to be placed in every primary and secondary school. In the light of the impact of online harms on our children’s mental health, we have made a strong case for the “polluter pays” principle, whereby big tech giants bear the cost burden of the measure. A trebling of the digital services tax would fund a practitioner in every primary and secondary school.

I am slightly confused because, as the Minister said during the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill Committee, and as I have seen in Labour party material, the Government are committed to

“introducing specialist mental health support for children and young people in every school”.

However, Labour had previously committed to having a counsellor in every secondary school, and indeed the hon. Member for Redditch talked about having a counsellor in every school. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point of policy when he speaks in a moment.

My impression during the Bill Committee was that the Government intended to build out from the mental health support teams that were established by the previous Government. The Minister confirmed in Committee that only 44% of children and young people have access to such teams, which will rise to 50% in April, but he did not set out a timeline or a plan for how or when the Government will meet their commitment by ensuring that every school has access to specialist support.

MHSTs are brilliant. I have spoken to staff who work in those teams, both in my own constituency and in Carshalton, with my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean). However, the reality is that MHSTs are spread far too thinly across a number of primary and secondary schools, with some schools only getting half a day or a day of support. That is not enough. Last year, one teenager in a secondary school in my constituency took their own life. Another school in my constituency had three teenagers end up in A&E in the space of about two months, having attempted to take their own lives. Clearly, that level of mental ill health requires much more acute intervention than therapy in school, but the reality is that if we start early—if we start young—with proper support, some of these truly awful incidents might be prevented.

The MHST model may well be the best model for support in schools, but I urge the Government to be ambitious in the resourcing of those teams, so that every school has the full-time equivalent of one person in the provision of this support. I know that many schools are trying to top up the resource out of their own funds, but with budgets being stretched ever further, sadly, mental health support is one of the areas that headteachers and governors tell me they are having to start cutting back on.

We know that the epidemic of mental ill health is driving the crisis of persistent absence in our schools. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge) said, we have heard a lot in recent days about the million or so young adults who are not in education, employment or training, often because of mental ill health. For the sake of those young people’s futures, our economy and our society, we must do better, and we must do more.

I do not have time today to talk about school staff, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, but we have a recruitment and retention crisis in our schools, and that is because many teachers see themselves as the fourth emergency service. We have to support them with their mental health if we want to stop that flow out of our schools. In higher education, I hope the Government will look at introducing a duty of care, because we have heard too many tragic stories of students taking their own lives and their loved ones knowing nothing about their mental health problems.

I pay tribute to the charities around the country that are plugging the gaps in mental health support. In my constituency, we have amazing charities such as the Purple Elephant Project and Off The Record working with children and their families. Anstee Bridge works across Richmond and Kingston with children who are no longer engaging with school. As I said, there have been a number of attempted suicide cases in my constituency, and when I have been to Anstee Bridge, I have heard many more stories of children attempting to take their own lives. These services are critical if we want to keep those children and young people safe and help them to recover.

I want to touch on two more points. Childhood bereavement is a really important and often overlooked issue. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine), who has long championed the need for a register of children who have been bereaved. We know that childhood bereavement has a terrible impact on children’s wellbeing, potentially their mental health and their educational outcomes. I hope Ministers will look seriously at introducing a register, so that we know how many of these children there are, where they are and what support they need, because that information is not available at the moment. Additionally, there is no national mandate from the Department for Education for schools to have a bereavement policy, nor is there any national policy to support schools with this. I hope that will be addressed.

The hon. Member for Redditch mentioned children growing up in kinship care. The Minister will know that I have long been campaigning cross-party on support for kinship carers and children growing up in kinship care. Like other Members, my inbox has been filled recently with emails from constituents who have either adopted children or are kinship carers for children whose parents can no longer look after them and have benefited from the adoption and special guardianship support fund. It is a critical fund that carers often access to provide therapeutic support for children who have experienced terrible trauma, loss and instability. However, there has been no reassurance from Government about the future of that fund. I think at the moment we only have funding confirmed until the end of this month. There is a huge amount of uncertainty, and hon. Members from across the House have tabled written questions but there has been no clear answer on the future of this fund. I hope that when the Minister rises at the Dispatch Box, he will put on record the plans for the adoption and special guardianship support fund as it is crucial and we cannot lose it.

Our children cannot thrive and cannot achieve their full potential if they are not happy and if they are not well, so I implore the Minister to work closely with his counterparts in the Department of Health and Social Care to treat this public health challenge as an emergency. Our children and young people are only young once; they deserve the best future they can get. They cannot afford to wait; we need to prioritise this.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

[Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) on securing this important debate in the Chamber. I should also declare an interest: I am a consultant paediatrician and have worked throughout my career with children usually at the point of severe crisis when they have been admitted through A&E to hospital following episodes of deliberate self-harm, such as cutting themselves or taking overdoses, and I have clearly seen the heartbreak for families as they have struggled to understand what they can do to best help their young person get better.

Over recent years there has been a decline in the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people and an increasing demand for mental health services. This is perhaps one of the big challenges of our era. Currently around one fifth of children aged eight to 16 are said to have a probable mental health disorder, up from 12.5% in 2017. This figure is even higher, at 22%, for people aged 17 to 24. The consequences of mental health issues for students range from poor academic performance and dropping out of university or college to self-harm and suicide, and we must do all we can to help.

I want briefly to talk about university students because university is supposed to be one of the most enjoyable and formative periods of a person’s life, but for many it is also when they leave home for the first time and when they are separated for the first time from their family and friends and their support networks. Data from the Office for National Statistics shows that during the covid-19 pandemic students reported higher levels of anxiety and lower levels of happiness than the general population. The number of students saying they have a mental health condition has increased sevenfold in the last decade. Even before the pandemic students consistently reported worse mental health than the rest of the adult population, but these trends were greatly exacerbated by the impact of lockdown. Will the Minister update the House on what steps he is taking to support young people with mental health problems as they go to university or who develop mental health problems at university?

Despite the unprecedented challenges the previous Government faced, not least the pandemic, we made important strides in improving mental health services, in increasing the recognition and discussion of mental health problems, in increasing investment and in reducing stigma. Between 2018-19 and 2023-24, spending on mental health services increased by £4.7 billion which gave an additional 345,000 young people access to the mental health support they needed, and the number of mental health nurses increased by 30% since 2010, yet still we see that demand is outstripping supply.

Prevention is better than cure and we need to understand why we have such high levels of mental health problems in children. Can the Minister update the House on how the Government are working to identify risk factors for poor mental health and how they will support children and families to prevent it?

The last Government tried to detect mental health problems early and stop them escalating, expanding mental health support teams in schools, committing almost £8 million of funding for 24 early support hubs in ’24/25. These offered earlier open access mental health intervention without the need for a referral by a doctor or school. The drop-in centres offer vital advice to young people going through the trauma of stress and anxiety, giving them a space to go to when their problems first emerge. Can the Minister update us on what the Government are doing in terms of expanding the availability of these centres?

The Online Safety Act 2023 made very good progress in protecting children from harmful online content but there is much more to do on the topic of screen time, as has been mentioned by hon. Members this afternoon. Does the Minister agree that the mounting evidence we are hearing especially from health professionals about the impact of smartphones in particular on children’s mental health is very concerning? If so, will he support the Conservative amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ban smartphone use in schools?

However, there have been some concerns that in the desire to support and enable individuals to have positive mental wellbeing, there is a danger that the pendulum has swung a little far and the boundaries between distress and disorder have become blurred. That means that there is a risk that those who are most unwell may miss out on the treatment they deserve and need because of the volume of referrals, as well as a risk of burdening others with unhelpful labels and prescriptions that could hold them back, without addressing the root cause of their very real need.

Some 84% of GPs are now said to believe that society’s approach to mental health has led to medicalising the normal ups and downs of life. The terms “wellbeing”, “mental health” and “mental illness” are often used interchangeably, so what steps is the Minister taking to distinguish between those terms in educational contexts, and to deliver public services to ensure that we can get the best outcomes for those affected, so people get the treatment they clinically require?

I pay tribute to the work that many charities do to support our young people with mental health problems. Will the Minister talk to the Chancellor about funding for those services? Dr Sarah Hughes, the chief executive of Mind, said that

“the implications of the NIC rise is eye-watering, at a time when we are trying to direct every penny towards delivering the best support.”

Such charities do immense work to create a mentally healthy society, putting everything they have into it, and the Government should recognise that huge investment, not destabilise it by introducing mounting costs that charities simply cannot subsidise.

It is important to recognise the connection between physical and mental health, and that those with long-term physical conditions are considerably more likely to have poor mental health. What are the Government doing to support children who have chronic illness to help improve their mental health?

In 2023, the now Education Secretary said that Labour wanted a trained mental health counsellor available in every secondary school. What steps have the Government taken towards achieving that aim? More specifically, why have they focused on secondary schools? In April 2024, Dr Patrick Roach, the general secretary of NASUWT, said:

"We also need to see improved support for pupils in primary schools to secure wraparound care for pupils at all stages of their education.”

What are the Government doing to support children in primary schools with their mental health?

Ahead of the last general election, the Labour party promised to establish Young Futures hubs, recruit 8,500 mental health staff and provide mental health support in schools. Why has so little progress been made on delivering those promises? When the Minister stood on a manifesto to establish the Young Futures hubs, which were said to have a cost of £95 million, and to provide mental health support in all schools, at a cost of £175 million, the Government said that they would fund that through revenue raised from applying VAT and business rates to private schools. Will the Minister confirm whether the revenue obtained from applying the VAT to private schools looks like it will be sufficient to expand the mental health support as described? If not, how do the Government intend to fund the measures they said they would implement?

In a speech to the Confederation of School Trusts on 7 November last year, the Education Secretary claimed that the Government would give

“every single child the very best life chances”

in

“a new era of child-centred government.”

How does she justify the impact on the wellbeing of those children who are forced to move schools due to the imposition of VAT on the private sector? Numerous think-tanks and mental health charities have noted that being forced to move school at a non-standard time can have a significant and long-lasting impact on children’s friendships, support networks and emotional development. What support is the Minister offering to those children?

Mental health issues among our young people are one of the defining issues of our time. As with so many other policy areas, the Government have promised a panacea, but so far they have delivered a sticking plaster.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I can assure the hon. Member that I have not announced anything today. As I mentioned in response to the intervention from the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), we are working through the detail, but the commitment is to access to dedicated mental health support in every school. It was a real pleasure to visit the hon. Member’s constituency and see that work at first hand.

A number of Members are interested in the role of councils in this important issue. Local government’s public health responsibilities are an essential element of preventing ill health, promoting healthier lives and addressing health inequalities. The Department of Health and Social Care will provide more than £4 billion of public health funding in 2025-26, including over £3.8 billion through the public health grant to local authorities—an average cash increase of 5.4%, or a 3.0% real-terms increase in local authority public health grant funding compared with the last financial year. That represents a significant turning point for local public health services, marking the biggest real-terms increase after nearly a decade of reduced funding.

I thank all Members from all parts of the House for their contributions this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Member for Redditch spoke with real insight and passion about the support that children and young people need, and about the need for parity between physical and mental health, and he made a number of informed contributions based on evidence and research. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett (Liz Twist), who for some time has spoken in this place on behalf of families who have lost loved ones due to suicide. I pay tribute to her work alongside the hugely dedicated campaigners that are the 3 Dads Walking. I have had the privilege of meeting those individuals, and they are inspiring in the work that they do.

We heard from the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who made a number of points from her experience on the Select Committee and from visits to schools in her area. I look forward to her continued constructive engagement as we progress our ambitions on mental health in this place.

A number of Members made contributions on support for SEN children. Every child, regardless of their individual needs, deserves the opportunity to achieve, thrive and succeed. This Government are aware of the scale of the challenges in the current system, and we have made clear our commitment to addressing them.

In conclusion, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch and all Members that this Government prioritise the health and happiness of children and their wellbeing. We recognise the need for further support in schools, so that all children can achieve and thrive, including in tackling the generational challenge of school absence and bolstering young people’s wellbeing and sense of belonging. We value the many contributions from across the House in the debate today, and I again thank my hon. Friend for securing it.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The last few minutes go to Chris Bloore to wind up.

--- Later in debate ---

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance on what mechanisms are open to Members under the Standing Orders of this place to obtain accurate information from Government Ministers. Earlier today, during the debate on the future of farming, the shadow Environment Secretary asked the farming Minister for the exact cap associated with the sustainable farming incentive, which the Minister claimed has now been reached. Astonishingly, the Minister was unable to give that information to the House, despite farming being in his brief. How can Members of this place ensure that Ministers provide accurate information to the House of Commons? If the Minister is unable to do so when requested, how can I request that he come back to the House to update Members when the exact information is known?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

The hon. Member will know that the content of statements that Ministers make is not the responsibility of the Chair, but he has put his comments on the record. Of course, he can go to the Table Office, which will give him further advice on how he can put in probing questions for further clarity. No doubt those on the Treasury Benches have heard him and will relay that information.

I assume that the hon. Member alerted the Minister that he would raise this point of order. If not, he will no doubt do so very swiftly.

Qualifications Reform Review

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 12th December 2024 Commons Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Janet Daby)]

With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I will now make a statement on the outcomes of the review of qualifications reform at level 3.

The priority for this Government is to build a skills system that will drive forward opportunity and deliver the growth that our economy needs. The post-16 skills system in England that we inherited from the previous Government fails both of those tests. In particular, the qualifications landscape is too confusing and fails to provide the clear routes to success that is needed by learners and employers. We heard strong arguments that the previous Government’s plans to remove level 3 qualifications and to limit the flexibility for schools and colleges meant that they risked leaving students with too little choice and too few opportunities.

This year, we have paused the defunding of qualifications and have undertaken a review of the qualifications that are set to have their funding removed, to see where we need to retain alternative qualifications, such as applied general qualifications or BTECs, and to consider how long we need to keep them in place. We undertook extensive stakeholder engagement, delving into the detail of qualifications with employer representative bodies, colleges, practitioners, awarding organisations and industry experts.

We recognise that certainty is very important to education providers, to students and to their parents and guardians. I reassure the House that our decisions make the position clear up to 2027. We are clear that students deserve high-quality qualifications that meet their needs, and that we must continue to develop and improve qualifications, so that they provide for the needs of students and employers.

The curriculum and assessment review will take a view on qualifications in the long term, as part of its wider consideration of how we prepare all young people for life and work, but there are some areas where we need to act in advance of its recommendations. The first change that we will make is that we will not tell providers and students which types of qualifications they can and cannot mix together. It should be for colleges and sixth forms to work with students, employers, mayors and higher education to devise the best mix for each individual and deliver the skilled young people that their local economy needs.

We will therefore not be applying the previously proposed rules of combination. There are a confusing number of qualifications in the system, and through this review, we have already identified more than 200 qualifications with low or no enrolments. We will remove funding from these in line with already published dates. This gives students and employers a simpler range of qualifications to choose from.

T-levels provide an excellent qualification option, which should be available to more learners. We introduced three new T-levels this September, and a further T-level in marketing is to be introduced from September 2025. It was fantastic to see the energy generated by this year’s T-levels Week, which highlighted the huge benefits that young people are gaining from T-levels, and their enthusiasm for the qualification. The unique industry placement aspect of T-levels is a real draw for students and is all too often not offered by other qualifications.

We have recently introduced new flexibilities to support industry placement delivery, to enable more young people to benefit from the opportunities that T-levels provide. It follows, therefore, that where learners wish to study a large qualification in a T-level route, the T-level should be the main option for them. We have moved away from blanket restrictions, such as automatically defunding any qualification that overlaps with a T-level. Instead, we have taken a practical, evidence–led approach, looking at the qualifications route by route. This will ensure that we can be confident that students have high-level choices.

On this basis, we have concluded that we will not proceed with defunding qualifications on published lists in agriculture, environment and animal care; legal, finance and accounting; business and administration; and creative and design before 2027. Following our review, we will retain funding for 157 qualifications that were due to be defunded by 31 July 2025.

In engineering and manufacturing, we will keep funding for the qualifications that were previously identified for defunding until 2027. This will allow time to update the occupational standards that are designed by employers and that underpin this large and complex route, and to establish new qualifications that meet the needs of learners, providers and employers.

In the digital sector, we are working with the T-level awarding organisation to make assessments more manageable, and plan to have the necessary changes in place for the next academic year. We are also making T-level placements more flexible, expanding the option for remote learning. This will be particularly important in the digital route. We will keep funding for the six existing large digital qualifications until 2026, to allow time to embed these key improvements. Beyond that, we will also keep funding for 13 smaller digital qualifications, so that learners have a range of choices until reformed alternatives are available.

On health, science and social care, the previous decision to defund social care qualifications left a gap, as there was a heavy T-level focus on health and science, rather than on social care. We will therefore keep funding for nine qualifications in health and social care until new qualifications in the care services route have been developed. We expect that to happen in 2026-27. We are also keeping funding beyond that for 11 qualifications in science-related subjects to give learners even more options.

On education and early years, we have heard strong support for the T-level, and so we will remove funding from existing large and medium qualifications as planned in 2025. This will direct learners who want to study a large qualification to the T-level as the highest-quality option. We are also retaining funding for six smaller qualifications to support specific occupations, such as teaching assistants, giving learners a smaller alternative.

Construction is a key part of this Government’s mission, and I am delighted to report that two of the construction T-levels continue to grow and offer high-quality options for learners. The on-site construction T-level is also providing valuable education, industry experience and a positive route into employment for those who wish take it. However, its success has been limited because of a lack of overall demand for a larger qualification at level 3. We have, as a result, concluded that the needs of learners and the economy are best met through apprenticeships and other classroom provision, and decided to cease taking new enrolments for the on-site construction T-level. Those already taking it will be able to complete it as planned and progress into positive destinations post-graduation.

To meet the economic needs of this important sector and to ensure that we can support our missions around high-quality housing, we are also keeping one large qualification in site carpentry, and in 11 other medium and small qualifications.

We must continue to improve opportunities and the quality of qualifications. We will keep qualifications only until they are no longer needed, so that learners can do the T-levels that they need to do. We will invite awarding organisations to submit further new level 3 qualifications in the spring, to continue the process of reform.

We are currently considering whether proposed T-levels in catering and beauty therapy meet the needs of learners and the economy, and we will update the sector in due course. I can confirm that any new T-level in these areas will not be rolled out until at least 2026.

These changes are a fair reflection of what we have heard, and offer a balanced approach that supports our missions of spreading opportunity and supporting economic growth. We want high-quality options, strong choices and a simpler system that is easier for learners to navigate. The approach and timescales that I have set out today represent a pragmatic and achievable journey to where we want to be. We are putting the needs of learners and our economy at the heart of how we move forward. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the shadow Minister.

--- Later in debate ---

[Janet Daby]

I thank the shadow Minister for his many points. The reason the review was so pertinent and needed to take place was because of the confusion around T-levels and how much work needed to take place—work that the Conservative Government had a lot of time to do. This Government believe that T-levels are an excellent qualification that should be available to more young people. Qualifications that overlap with T-levels will be able to co-exist while we continue to develop and improve qualifications, so that they provide for the needs of learners and employers, and support the transition to T-levels as the large technical qualification of choice. The Conservative Government’s rushed plans would have left young people looking to move into crucial sectors such as engineering or social care without options. Instead of blanket restrictions, the review will deliver on the Government’s ambition to fix the foundations of the economy and deliver growth.

As the shadow Minister mentioned, T-levels are still in the early stage of implementation, and the retention rate is improving. We expect that trend to be maintained as they continue to bed in. Career guidance for potential students is key, and we are raising careers advisers’ awareness of the benefits of T-levels. The shadow Minister will be aware of the announcement in the October Budget of £300 million of additional revenue funding for further education and £300 million of new capital investment. That settlement reaffirms and expands the Government’s commitment to skills by providing an additional £3 million for further education to ensure that young people are developing the skills that the country needs. In addition, the Government have provided £300 million of new funding to support colleges to maintain, improve and ensure the suitability of the FE estate, and address conditions and capacity issues. We will set out in due course how that will be distributed.

There are many areas in which the Government are making advancements, and we are very aware that students need to be supported. Combinations of learning are absolutely the right thing for them. We remain ambitious for students. I will endeavour to get back to the shadow Minister on the terms of reference.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Chair of the Education Committee.

[Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to everyone who works in further education—a vital sector that makes a transformative difference, and whose importance is often not properly recognised. Vocational and technical courses and qualifications are a critical part of our education system, yet schools, colleges and students have faced great uncertainty as a consequence of the previous Government’s decision to defund a number of applied general qualifications. I welcome the additional certainty that the Minister has provided by committing to maintain some AGQs and pause any further changes until 2027.

The landscape of vocational qualifications is indeed too complex and confusing, but the cliff-edge approach adopted by the previous Government had significant adverse consequences. My Committee has heard evidence that the previous Government’s plans have already had material impacts, because some colleges have modelled the proposed reduction in courses and now face potential insolvency as a result. What support will the Government provide to colleges that have already planned and committed to their qualification offering for September 2025, based on the previous Government’s decision to defund, and now face further changes?

The Committee has also heard evidence of the success of T-levels for those who complete them, particularly in areas such as healthcare. However, T-levels account for just 10% of all vocational courses, and continue to have a worryingly high drop-out rate. What further work are the Government planning between now and 2027 to reform T-levels and make them accessible to a wider range of students, including students with special educational needs and disabilities, before any further changes to AGQs are made? My Committee understands the value and potential of T-levels, but it is vital that in pursuing this route as the predominant option for technical and vocational training, the Government are not locking some young people out of the opportunity to learn, succeed and thrive.

[Janet Daby]

I join the Chair of the Education Committee in praising many colleges, the sector, and teachers themselves. She is right to mention the track record of the previous Government. We very much want to support students in their learning, and especially colleges. Where colleges find that they have to change course, or where there are issues with courses, I invite them to make that known to the Department, to see what support can be provided. The £300 million that has been invested in this area should go some way to providing it. T-levels need much focus through positive communication, and we need to ensure that young people enrol in the right courses. There is a series of events and webinars to inform schools, colleges and other professionals working in educational settings about the outcomes of the review. The Department will publish further information, advice and guidance in relation to 16-to-19 study programmes in the new year.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

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

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

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

Primary School Breakfast Clubs

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Monday 18th November 2024 Commons Chamber

[Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)]

“Tired, hungry and cold.” That is how one headteacher told me a number of her pupils came to school feeling, when I visited a primary school in Torbay last week. I was impressed with how her team was supporting those youngsters, both emotionally and with material support, whether for hunger or for feeling cold. It was very sad that one of the pupils was showing a blanket to others because it was keeping them warm. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the more opportunities we give for youngsters in our schools to get warm meals, the more we can drive positive change for our communities?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I can tell from the number of contributions that this debate is important to many colleagues. However, Members should be here at the beginning of the debate if they wish to make interventions.

Government’s Childcare Expansion

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Thursday 17th October 2024 Commons Chamber

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

With permission, I will make a statement on the Government’s plans to deliver additional places in school-based nurseries, and a clarification on Government action on so-called top-up fees for funded childcare hours. I will also update the House on the Government’s response to the consultation on safeguarding requirements in the early years foundation stage framework.

The Secretary of State has promised a new era of child-centred government, working alongside the sector to deliver meaningful long-term reform of the early years system. The Government believe that all children deserve access to a brilliant early education, regardless of who they are, where they come from or their parents’ income. Today marks a significant step for thousands of families, as we begin the first stage of the Government’s plan to deliver 3,000 new or expanded school-based nurseries. From today, primary schools can apply for a grant of up to £150,000 from a £15 million capital funding pot to make the changes needed for their site to accommodate a nursery.

The new or expanded nurseries are set to open across England from the start of the next school year. We have chosen to expand school-based nurseries because schools are at the heart of our communities. School-based nurseries cater for a higher proportion of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and offer a higher share of nursery places in the most deprived areas. To support our most vulnerable children and build on the existing market, the funding will be available for projects that are either school-run or delivered on the school’s site by private and voluntary providers or childminders. Schools will be asked to work with local authorities to demonstrate local parental demand for places. If there are primary schools that are interested in this programme but are not currently ready or eligible to host new nursery places, we encourage them to register an interest for the future. We expect funding to be allocated to successful schools in spring 2025 to support delivery of the first nursery places from September 2025.

As we expand the childcare system, it is crucial that early education and childcare remains fair and accessible to all parents. That is why we are taking action to address situations where parents are facing high and additional charges on top of the funded entitlement hours. Those charges, which may include mandatory fees for nappies, lunch, or additional hours, should not be a condition for accessing a funded place. The vast majority of providers are working hard to make sure that parents can access their entitlements, but any sort of mandatory additional charging or preferential treatment towards parents who purchase optional extras is not acceptable. Over the next few months, my Department will engage with local authorities, providers and parents to develop and clarify guidance on this issue, including on so-called “top-up fees”. We will support local authorities to protect parents from overcharging.

I turn to new childcare entitlements. In September, working parents of children aged nine months and above were able to access 15 hours per week of Government-funded early education for the first time. I can confirm that over 320,000 additional children are now accessing the new entitlement. Delivering the scheme has not been without difficulty and owes much to the collaboration between local authorities, providers and the work of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, who has made ensuring the roll-out a priority. At the same time, we are helping the sector to deliver the necessary places for September 2025. This final, more challenging phase of the roll-out will increase the funded childcare entitlement of working parents to 30 hours per week.

Trust matters in politics, which is why I want to reiterate this Government’s commitment to honouring the promise made by the last Government to deliver these entitlements, but the House should be in no doubt that this will be an extremely difficult task. There remains a significant shortage of staff and places. The Government’s spending watchdog has said that, in order to deliver the roll-out, in some parts of the country we will need to double or even triple capacity in order to provide the additional hours. There are substantial gaps to fill, left behind knowingly by the Conservative party. We must be honest with families about the fact that in some parts of England, while parents may receive the hours they were promised, they may not get their first choice of nursery or childminder.

I assure the House that we will continue to work tirelessly to bridge the gaps in time for next September, and our plans to expand primary school-based nurseries will help us to deliver these entitlements. Our priority is to provide high-quality education and care for children while ensuring their safety, in order to give every child the best start in life.

Today the Department published its official response to the consultation on proposals to strengthen safeguarding requirements in the statutory early years foundation stage framework. These reforms are set to be implemented from September 2025. The changes to be made to the framework are based on lessons learned from tragic past events, responses to our consultation, and feedback from safeguarding experts and the sector. The consultation received 1,470 responses, with strong support for all the proposals. The Department will therefore implement all the proposals, including those on safer recruitment, child absences, safer eating, safeguarding training, and paediatric first aid training. There will also be new proposals on providing employment references and supporting whistleblowing. These changes will formalise existing best practices, and will ensure that all early years educators have the knowledge and support that they need to deliver safe, high-quality early education and childcare.

As many parents know, childminders are a key part of the early education and childcare market, providing choice and flexibility. We are already delivering childminder start-up grants to help new childminders with the costs of registering, and on 1 November we will introduce new flexibilities for childminders to help them join and stay in the profession. These changes will create a new category of childminder who can work entirely from non-domestic premises. The total number of people who can work together under a childminder’s registration will increase from three to four. Childminders will also have more flexibility to operate for more time outside domestic premises, for instance from a community hall or school. These new flexibilities will further support the Government’s commitment to rolling out expanded childcare entitlements and giving children the best start in life.

Parents’ need for childcare does not stop when their children reach primary school age. Since July, we have allocated more than £130 million to local authorities to begin delivering these new places to parents of primary school age children as part of the national wraparound childcare programme. Initial delivery plans indicate that this programme will deliver up to 200,000 new childcare places, at either end of the school day, available in over 50% of all primary schools. However, we want to go further to support hard-working families and tackle disadvantage, which is why we committed ourselves in our manifesto to introducing free breakfast clubs in every primary school.

Breakfast clubs can have a tremendously positive impact in helping children to arrive at school on time and ready to learn, while also helping working parents to have more choices in the workplace. From April 2025, free breakfast clubs will be available in up to 750 early adopter schools. That will be part of the test-and-learn phase, but new breakfast clubs, once rolled out nationally, will be available to every state-funded school with primary school age children, and will give parents more affordable childcare choices while also helping families with the cost of living. Children will be able to start the school day ready to learn, which will give them the best start in life and in their education.

This Government are determined to break down barriers to opportunity. That must start before school, with high-quality early education that is both available and affordable. We inherited a pledge without a plan, so this Labour Government must work to deliver the change that families need. We will deliver places in new nurseries, tackle unfair “top-up fees”, and ensure that every child can have the best start in life. I commend this statement to the House.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I should explain to newer colleagues that interventions are not made during statements by Ministers or responses from shadow Ministers. I now call the shadow Minister to respond to the Minister’s statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless work speaking up for children, young people and parents up and down the country. As she rightly says, we are working hard with the early years sector to recruit the staff we need, including through the extended recruitment campaign Do Something Big, so that we attract more people to work in the early education system and ensure there are good training pathways into careers in early education. We are resetting relationships with staff across the education sector to ensure they are respected and valued for the important work they do. School-based nurseries currently have lower turnover and have the option to use some staff flexibly between reception and early years in primary schools. I am looking forward to cracking on with delivering on those commitments.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who has two minutes.

[Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

I am suffering because of the length of time that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde) took earlier. I will try to stick to two minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I thank the Minister for sight of his statement. The Liberal Democrats believe that flexible, affordable childcare and early years education is a critical part of our society. High-quality early years education is the best possible investment in the future and contributes to economic performance in the present as well. Most importantly, it is the most effective way to narrow the gap between rich and poor children.

Broadly, we welcome the Government’s promise to expand access to affordable childcare and early years education. Under the previous Government, we saw what happens when big promises on childcare are not backed up by the funding and resources needed to deliver them. The Conservative Government’s plans risked exacerbating the problems that parents already faced: a lack of childminder places and eye-watering fees.

The number of childminders in England fell by an estimated 26% between 2018 and 2023. Last year, a report found that 35% of nursery managers would limit the number of places they offered unless the Government helped with recruitment. I note from the Minister’s statement that the Government are taking steps to improve recruitment and retention in the childcare and early years sector, but does the Minister agree that a career strategy is also needed for those working in early years, including a training programme, so that all those working with young children are properly trained and supported? Will he give assurances that the places announced today will be properly supported by committing to a full review of the rates paid to providers for free hours, to ensure they cover the actual costs of delivering that high-quality childcare?

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

Childminders are a key part of the childcare market, providing more choice and flexibility for parents. From next month, the Government plan to implement new flexibilities to help childminders join and stay in the profession. That will include enabling childminders to work from non-domestic premises, as I mentioned in my statement, and increasing the number of childminders who can work together; that will improve children’s access to new experiences out of the home and encourage socialisation. As we seek to deliver a sea change in our approach to early years, we want partners, including childminders, to work closely with us to push for better.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I call the Father of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

There are countless millions of free childminders available. The love between a grandparent and a grandchild is the purest love: love without responsibility. I declare a personal interest. Will the Minister assure me that he will incentivise grandparents to look after their grandchildren, and that nothing in the tax or benefits system will discriminate against mothers who want to look after their children full time? Will he build on the Conservatives’ scheme of transferrable allowances?

[Shaun Davies (Telford) (Lab)]

As a former school governor and a dad, I see the amazing work that preschools and nurseries do up and down the country. These measures will be a key way to break down barriers to opportunity and get the country growing, as the Minister says. Will the Minister commit to ensuring that children in care and the children of those in the armed forces are prioritised for the additional care places? Will he reassure childminders that we are on their side, because childminders in Telford have missed the memo from the Government on this set of improvements?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

Order. I remind hon. Members to ask short questions.

[Stephen Morgan]

Since joining the House, my hon. Friend has already become a champion for children and young people in his constituency. He raises a number of points—about childminders, support for children in care, and military families. As I represent the heart and home of the Royal Navy, I take those matters very seriously. I will certainly consider the points that he raises as we design a system fit for the future.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question; he is absolutely right. The pandemic had a huge impact on children’s lives, and our investment in early interventions around speech and language is absolutely key. I look forward to working with him to deliver that successfully in his constituency.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

The final zinger of a question is from Josh Simons.

[Josh Simons (Makerfield) (Lab)]

We’ll see! I am intrigued to hear Conservative Members’ attempts to defend their record. Moments ago, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) said that the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch) is “preoccupied with her children” and cannot be the Leader of the Opposition while spending time with her family. This comes after she herself said that maternity leave has “gone too far”. Does the Minister agree that whereas this Government are working hard to back the hope that children represent, Conservative Members are, in the end, the same old Tories?

Sustainability and Climate Change (National Curriculum)

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 27th October 2021 Westminster Hall

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

Before we begin, I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. I remind Members that they are asked by the House to have a covid lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. This can be done either at the testing centre in the House, or at home. Please give each other and members of staff room when seated, and when entering and leaving the room.

--- Later in debate ---

[Derek Thomas]

Again, that is a great intervention. I met with the Secretary of State and eight head teachers from my constituency a couple of years ago, and we had that very discussion about how we could actually do this in schools. Interestingly, half of the heads said, “Let’s just use what we have now to get it through every part of our education and curriculum,” and the other half said “No, we need a specific resource and tool to be able to teach it,” as the hon. Lady said, potentially as a GCSE.

I am not an education expert, although I have three children going through the system at the moment. I would argue that, particularly in primary school, we should just look at every pot of learning and attach it to how we live on the planet. The connection is then how we care for the planet. We can do that in everything we teach in primary school. In secondary school, I think there should be an opportunity to continue that, but also the opportunity for students to learn and to take a particular interest.

I am trying to demonstrate that this is about the skills need across the country to deliver what we have committed to, and that must start with preparing children and young people for the work they will do when they leave. Education in schools should address the link between our demands and the carbon in the supply chain. We often talk about wanting to take the necessary measures in our own lives to reduce our carbon footprints but we quickly find that we go and order stuff online without necessarily knowing where it comes from or the carbon footprint attached to that item. If we helped our young people to understand that better, when they look at their careers, they will look at how they can be involved in the food chain, in clothing and in all of those things that we need, but where carbon miles can be reduced.

I appreciate that you are trying to get me to shut up, Ms Ghani; I will be very quick now. We must look at what skills are needed to meet the higher skilled job opportunities in renewable energy, construction, mining, technology, agriculture and environmental and marine management. A tip from a meeting I went to this morning is that if we want our children to have great careers, we should send them down the heat engineer route. We have an opportunity, not just to enable our young people to deal with the great challenges facing them as they grow up and the challenges we should be addressing now, but to seize the opportunity, and to have the high-paid, high-skill jobs that we talk about. That means that the choices we make to do the right thing for the planet are actually choices that are good for us.

Choices in the interests of the environment are rarely negative or sacrificial choices set against their positive aspects, such as better homes, healthier air, high-skilled jobs, and so on. This is a timely debate. It is critical to get this right. I support getting education in the curriculum across every school, so that every child is equipped to live, flourish, and embrace the world that we have been given, which we are privileged to have.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

To ensure that we can incorporate all speakers, could they please be mindful of keeping their speeches to around five minutes?

--- Later in debate ---

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

It is a pleasure to serve under you, Ms Ghani. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) on securing this really important debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to it.

This topic has long been very close to my heart. In March 2013, I tabled an early-day motion to oppose the Government’s plan at that time to remove climate change from the national curriculum guidelines for key stages 1 to 3. That EDM cited the former chief scientific adviser, Professor Sir David King, who maintained that the exclusion of such issues represents an abdication of our duty to future generations. It is with that duty to current and future generations in mind that I will make the case for not just defending and strengthening the existing curriculum but, as others have argued for, going further, particularly with a natural history GCSE.

Lots of the focus so far this morning has, understandably, been on the climate. I will focus a little more on nature. Nearly half of all species in Britain are in decline. Species vital to our survival, such as the bee, are in catastrophic decline. In the past decade alone, we have lost a quarter of our hedgehogs and 30% of my favourite birds, swifts. How many people know that a single swift can fly up to 4 million miles in its life? How extraordinary is that? It can stay on the wing for two years; it does everything on the wing until it stops to mate and start a family. I could wax lyrical about the swift for the rest of my time, but I will not. It is that kind of love of nature that is so crucial for young people, both in its own right and because, as the wonderful writer Richard Louv said, “We won’t protect what we don’t love and we won’t love what we don’t know”. Here is an opportunity to really get to love the nature that we have around us.

The scale of the destruction of our wildlife is terrifying, and it is accelerating. Scientists warn that the sixth mass extinction of life on Earth is happening right now, bringing with it the real risk of a collapse of civilisation. A new GCSE in natural history, first proposed by the writer and naturalist, Mary Colwell, in 2011, will clearly not turn that around on its own, but it is a start.

I have quoted Richard Louv’s words, but many children today do not necessarily know nature. A survey in 2018 found that more than half of UK children are unable to identify a stinging nettle, and earlier research showed that nearly 10% had not visited a park, a forest or a beach for 12 months or more. With half of all species in the UK in moderate or serious decline, there is a real danger that many of the next generation will grow up unable to recognise the wildlife on our doorsteps until it is gone, so there is no doubt in my mind that bringing climate and natural history to the school curriculum is long overdue.

At the same time, there is a growing awareness of the nature and climate crises among many children and young people and I believe that many of them would seize this opportunity if it was provided on the curriculum. Indeed, the hugely inspiring youth climate strikers are demanding that the education system is reformed so that every child can learn about the urgency, severity and scientific basis for the climate emergency, with a whole-school approach that mainstreams that through education. I do not see any contradiction between, on the one hand, mainstreaming this through all subjects on the curriculum and, at the same time, having a dedicated GCSE in natural history. I think those two things are complementary.

The early feedback from teachers to a worked-up proposal from the examination board, OCR is full of enthusiasm. There is interest from schools in remote rural areas and inner cities, as well as from schools with cultural backgrounds. Studying natural history is not about a sentimental preoccupation with a bucolic past; it is about engaging with the realities of an environment under intense pressure, how different species are responding and how nature plays out in urban settings, so it is hugely welcome that the Department for Education is considering that as an option. I urge it to work with us to make that a reality.

When the natural world on which we depend is facing such catastrophic loss, it is vital that the school curriculum gives young people the tools to understand what is happening so that we can act before it is too late. The OCR examination board has developed a course focusing on field study that also includes an exploration of our relationship with nature and how it has shaped our culture, art, literature and music. It would foster scientific, practical and emotional connections to the natural world and thus provide a unique contribution to the GCSE offering. It would teach children to name, record, monitor and collect data on the wildlife all around them and relate that wildlife to the wider countryside and internationally. It will teach vital field skills on how to process and evaluate data. In short, it will teach young people to be naturalists.

Earlier this year at the launch of Professor Dasgupta’s review on the contribution of nature to global economies, he ended with a plea to put nature into the heart of education and he highlighted the need for naturalists of the future. Re-engaging future generations with the natural world has never felt more important. As the Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, the right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne), said, that Committee has also unanimously supported the idea of a far greater focus on climate and nature education, including the GCSE.

In this crucial year of COP15 on biological diversity and, of course, COP26 on climate change, as Mary Colwell said:

“The establishment of a GCSE in natural history is far more than just another subject to choose. It signals an intent to take the nature of Britain seriously and to put into practice what we believe to be the right way to live on this earth, and this could inspire others to do the same.”

I urge the Minister to respond favourably to our points this morning. This really is a cross-party priority, as he can see, that can only bring about positive outcomes. There is huge enthusiasm for this from young people and schools; all we are waiting for is a green light from the Government. I urge the Minister to give it to us.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

I do not doubt that if you called for a debate on the swift, that would be just as well attended.

--- Later in debate ---

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Ghani. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) on the way she introduced this debate and on her good fortune in securing it. I also congratulate young people—not just the young people that are here, but young people everywhere, in that they are not angrier. They seem remarkably good-humoured, yet they should be extremely angry with the way that successive generations have left them a world that they are going to have to cope with. The problems that we have created are the problems that they will have to deal with. Certainly, if I look back to the things that angered me when I was in my teens and early 20s, had I been facing the sort of climate and environmental catastrophe that young people now are facing, I think I would have been even angrier than I was then.

What is good is that this debate has been cross-party and consensual. Nobody has stood up and said that there no need for us to teach about climate as an integral part of the curriculum. I echo what my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) said about the need for this to be holistic and to become an integrated way of teaching, not just a tick-box exercise within schools. It is vital that the relevance to people’s lives is made apparent.

Today we have the Budget, and I want to look to one element of hope, which is that the Treasury has finally come up with the Dasgupta review. This is an economic review commissioned by the Treasury to look into the integration of biodiversity and the natural world with economics—something that is long overdue. The report speaks about the way that we treat the environment as an “asset management problem”. What is perhaps most extraordinary about the Dasgupta review, apart from its length—at 605 pages, it is quite dense, with lots of formulae—is that, as an economist, having gone through all the economics and asset management problems and used all the formulae, he concluded that the oppressing issue was education. It is a Treasury report, yet Dasgupta concluded that the important issue was education: educating our children and educating the public. He talked about education on nature stretching from early years to university, with all universities mandating students to attend a basic course in ecology, and extending it beyond schools to adult workplaces and organisations, as everyone needs to recognise their role in restoring the natural world, and about a new GCSE in natural history, which was first proposed way back in 2012.

We must not treat the need for education about climate and the environment as separate from everything else the Government do. If it is seen in the Treasury as a driving force of our economy, then that is how we, as politicians, should regard it. That is why it is so important to integrate it into all that we do.

The right hon. Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne)—who, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East said, has guided the Environmental Audit Committee so brilliantly as its Chairman—has said that the Government have not yet stepped up to the plate in terms of the necessary skills. We know that the Government’s 25-year environment plan and the measures in the Environment Bill will need much greater ecological expertise at a local authority level. Biodiversity net gain for new developments and the creation of local nature recovery networks are good steps, but they cannot be delivered without the necessary in-house ecological expertise.

As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for nature, I wrote earlier this year to all local council chief executives to ask for their assessment of their in-house ecological expertise. I am afraid that, based on the overwhelming response we received, local authority leaders do not believe they can deliver on the Government’s ambitions. The situation has not changed significantly since 2013, when a study by the Association of Local Government Ecologists, ALGE, found that only one in three councils had access to the necessary expertise.

We need to develop the education and skills necessary for that expertise. The Government cannot impose obligations on local authorities and in the planning system without the capacity to deliver on those targets. If we do not train the necessary people, those targets will be meaningless and we will fail. It is vital that we see education as the pump-priming part in the delivery of the targets set in the Environment Bill and the net zero strategy.

In the Government’s response to the Dasgupta review, they mentioned the newly established sustainability and climate change unit under the Department for Education. However, as the chairman of the EAC said, the Committee’s latest inquiry on green jobs was quite clear that the Government are not grappling with the skills gap needed to achieve net zero. I hope the Minister prioritises the new unit and that it will be able to bridge the gap between the skills shortage and the demand, including through education and retraining of the current workforce, who will be affected by the changes, and where we need a just transition.

I cannot pass up the opportunity to meet the swift mentioned by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and the skylark that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North mentioned, and to raise them with an Arctic tern, which of course flies from the Arctic summer to the Antarctic summer. It actually traverses the globe once a year, flying 55,900, and in a lifetime flies many times the distance to the moon and back. It would be good to debate the amazing function of our birdlife and the loss of birdlife that we have seen in this country.

To pick up on something that my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North said, many of us remember as children being able to go into the countryside and see so many different species. In a sense, we have raised a generation of battery-reared children who have been cosseted and protected, with parents afraid to let their children go out and play on their own. That is a great loss to the world. An environmental premium for schools, as spoken about by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), is a really good idea.

Teach the Future asks for a Government-commissioned review of how the whole English formal education system is preparing students for the climate emergency and ecological crisis, the inclusion of the climate emergency and ecological crisis in teacher training and a new professional teaching qualification, and an English climate emergency education Act. I hope the Minister will respond to those three asks.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

We have the Arctic tern, the skylark and the swift. Mr Jim Shannon, it is over to you now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

I should just say that I am not the shadow Minister on this subject, but the shadow Schools Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Peter Kyle), is on a Bill Committee, which is why I am covering today. I want to thank him and the shadow Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), for their help in preparing for this debate. I will pass back any points made today, so hon. Members can rest assured that everyone’s comments have been heard and noted.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) for securing this important debate, which is also very timely, as everyone has mentioned. I pay tribute to her for the work she has done to highlight the importance of embedding climate change and sustainability in everything we do, including education, and for all the organisational work she has done for this campaign, not least bringing a delegation of young, bright people from the Teach the Future campaign to Parliament yesterday. I am delighted that some of them are in the Public Gallery: Scarlett, Stella, Tess, Yasmin and Charlie are very welcome to Parliament, but we also need them to educate us, as many Members have said during today’s debate.

My hon. Friend made many good points, but I particularly want to pick up on one of them, which was about how the education system is not preparing children for climate change. It is failing them, which is a damning verdict on the education system that we are living with, and of what the future holds for a lot of our children. I also want to take a minute to say that my hon. Friend may be generation Z, she may be the youngest Member of the House, and she only joined in 2019, but we can already see the impact of all the work she has undertaken. When Opposition Members start paying tribute to her for her work on the Environmental Audit Committee—that does not always happen in this House—we realise the strength of her capabilities, so I give her a huge “Well done” for having secured this important debate.

My fellow millennial Member, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), talked about the importance of teaching not just young people, but adults as well, about climate change and sustainability. That point was echoed by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), who said that a lot of adults do not even know what we are talking about—I know that I could do a crash course on this topic as well.

Turning to the topic at hand, many Members from both sides of the House who spoke today talked about how we need to do more to embed climate change within the curriculum. When I go to my local schools, teachers and school leaders are already aware of that need, and some amazing work is going on around the country to engage with pupils about climate change. However, the onus cannot just be on them, which is another point that has been made in the debate. The Government, and we as politicians, have to help them.

One example of that is the Eco-Schools green flag programme, which many schools, nurseries and colleges are a part of. It consists of seven steps that education institutions can take to focus their communities of pupils and staff on the climate emergency, including putting environmental issues in learning plans and choosing texts in subjects such as English that will explore those issues. That work has been supported by education unions, who to their enormous credit have been pushing the Government to recognise that we are in a climate emergency, and that we have to pay more attention to it and put it at the top of our agenda. I pay tribute to the National Education Union, the National Union of Students and the University and College Union in particular for all their hard work on this issue, including promoting Climate Learning Month in the run-up to COP26, which as we all know starts next week.

There was a lot of talk about schools in this debate, and how they are being innovative in their teaching of environmental issues. From school veg patches that teach children about sustainability as well as healthy eating, to planting trees to mark achievements and celebrations, our schools are leading the way in creating a more sustainable, greener future. Our curriculum should empower that work, and we should be supporting those schools. The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) talked about local gardening projects in schools in his constituency. I join him in paying tribute to Islington Council, which is doing an enormous amount of work on this, as well as the councils in my constituency, Brent and Camden Councils, which are doing similarly impressive work.

At the risk of this debate sounding like a north London takeover, I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), who talked about taking a holistic approach to this issue. I wholeheartedly agree: we cannot just have a box-ticking exercise, but have to look at this properly and make sure there is an integrated way of teaching. I also pay tribute to him for his important work on the APPG for nature, which does not get recognised so much in this House, but is a crucial part of the work we do in Parliament.

If we are going to transform education, we must support our educators to do so. Embedding climate change within the curriculum will mean new training for teachers and teaching assistants. At Labour conference, the shadow Education Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston, announced that we would give all teachers a right to continuing professional development, with £210 million extra per year for CPD, which could certainly be used to deliver this kind of training. I would like the Minister to pick up on this issue and say whether that proposal is something his Government might consider.

However, we have to recognise that this is not just about the curriculum. We should be looking to make our school estate and all our school environments eco-friendly and fit for the future. That point was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) also spoke about young people demanding that their school buildings be sustainable. If any Members have been to speak in schools, they will recognise young people’s passion about that.

What does concern me—I wonder whether the Minister will answer this—is that at a time when we need to be upgrading our school buildings as part of our national effort to get to net zero carbon emissions, since 2010 the capital spending on schools has been cut by 44%. That worries us. As my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey) said, our education system must prepare children and young people for the jobs of the future, which will be shaped by our transition to net zero.

The Labour party has announced plans for 400,000 green jobs. It is essential that we equip young people to develop the skills for those employment opportunities as we go into the future. That cannot happen only in schools, but it does require climate education and green skills to be embedded in further and higher education. That is why we welcome the new report from the Association of Colleges, “The Green College Commitment”, which recognises the need to go much further to embed those skills across courses. Will the Minister consider that carefully?

The leader of the Labour party has described climate change as

“the biggest long term threat we face”,

and from this debate it sounds like many Members agree. Tackling climate change is at the heart of our agenda and our manifesto as we move forward. However, the reality is that those who are most affected by the impact of climate change are those who are going through schools, colleges, nursery and early years education right now. We must act more strongly if we are to stem the tide of climate decline and protect the younger generations from catastrophic consequences. I really hope that the warm words we are hearing from the Government are finally translated into tangible progress at COP26 next week.

My hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles also spoke about the brutal cost that young people will bear. There is a harsh reality to that. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about leaving something behind for his five grandchildren. That is how I feel about my children; I feel that we need to leave something of the planet behind, and to prepare our children and young people for the challenges of the future.

That is why embedding learning about climate change and sustainability into our curriculum and our education system is vital; that is why this debate is vital; that is why we must equip young people with the skills they need to work in the green industries of the future. Far more innovation is needed from the Government when it comes to education and skills. It is crucial if we, as a country, want to leave the world in a transition to net zero. I hope that the Minister has been listening to the many important points raised in this very good debate. I also hope that the Minister will meet my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham East, as she requested.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (in the Chair)]

May I remind colleagues that for any messages that need to be shared with other Members, it is best to do so through the doorkeepers or the Parliamentary Private Secretaries rather than the Clerks.

Education

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 20th January 2021 Ministerial Corrections

[Gavin Williamson]

The reason we are rolling out and expanding our devices package is that we realise how important it is for all children, especially those from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. In the previous situation where schools had to be closed, during the months of March, April and May, children who did not have access to digital devices were able to access education in school if they were considered vulnerable by their school or local authority, and I can confirm that we are issuing the same standard and the same guidance today.

The following is a further extract from the statement.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I share my right hon. Friend’s concern over schools being closed, especially for children in Wealden who do not have access to technology. Can he double confirm that those children without access to tech are now seen as vulnerable, and can immediately access physical education—I mean, attend school—and will not have to jump through hoops to be able to get into school?

[Gavin Williamson]

I can absolutely confirm that. That was issued in our initial guidance on school closures back in March last year. We have repeated that self-same guidance all the way through where schools have been in an unfortunate position, because we have had to recognise that during the latter stages of last year, there were schools that were closed, and even during that time children who did not have access to that type of education were able to access education settings.

[Official Report, 6 January 2021, Vol. 686, c. 783.]

Letter of correction from the Secretary of State for Education, the right hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson).

An error has been identified in my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani).

The correct response should have been:

Covid-19: Educational Settings

Nusrat Ghani Excerpts

Wednesday 6th January 2021 Commons Chamber

[Gavin Williamson]

I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave some moments ago.

[Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)]

I share my right hon. Friend’s concern over schools being closed, especially for children in Wealden who do not have access to technology. Can he double confirm that those children without access to tech are now seen as vulnerable, and can immediately access physical education—I mean, attend school—and will not have to jump through hoops to be able to get into school?