School Places: Capital Funding

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2025 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing over £1 billion of new capital investment to support local authorities to create mainstream school places needed by September 2028. I am also confirming details of the £740 million of capital funding for the 2025-26 financial year to support the creation of school places for children and young people with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) or who require alternative provision (AP), and details of £2.1 billion in capital funding for the 2025-26 financial year to improve the condition of the school and sixth-form college estate in England.

High and rising school standards for all children is at the heart of this Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity and improve children’s outcomes through our plan for change. Ensuring that there are sufficient high-quality school places in well-maintained buildings is a critical part of driving forward this agenda.

Funding for mainstream school places

Today’s funding announcement will support local authorities to meet their statutory duty and create school places needed by September 2028.

This funding, £640 million of which will be allocated in the 2026-27 financial year, with a further £400 million allocated in 2027-28, is on top of almost £1.5 billion of basic need capital funding that has previously been announced to create new school places needed between 2024 and September 2026.

Funding for SEND and AP places

I am also confirming the details of the previously announced £740 million to support children and young people with SEND or who require AP.

This funding can be used to adapt classrooms to be more accessible for children with SEND, to create specialist facilities within mainstream schools that can deliver more intensive support adapted to suit the pupils’ needs, and to create special school places for pupils with the most complex needs.

Condition funding

We have increased funding to improve the condition of the estate for financial year 2025-26 to £2.1 billion, up from £1.8 billion committed for financial year 2024-25. This is in addition to our continued investment in the school rebuilding programme and targeted support for schools with RAAC.

The funding for financial year 2025-26 includes almost £1.4 billion in school condition allocations for eligible responsible bodies, including local authorities, large multi-academy trusts and large voluntary aided school bodies, such as dioceses, to decide how to invest across their schools. Allocations are partly informed by updated data on the relative condition of schools. It also includes almost £470 million available through the condition improvement fund, an annual bidding round for essential maintenance projects at schools in small and stand-alone academy trusts, small voluntary-aided bodies and sixth form colleges. Successful applications to the fund will be announced later in the spring. Almost £220 million in devolved formula capital (DFC) will be allocated directly for schools to spend on their own capital priorities.

Full details of this announcement, including the allocations for basic need, high needs, and condition funding, have been published on the Department for Education section on the gov.uk website here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/basic-need-allocations

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/high-needs-provision-capital-allocations

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/school-capital-funding

[HCWS559]

Free School Meals

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Tuesday 18th March 2025 Westminster Hall

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Dowd. I thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) for securing a debate on this important subject, and all Members for the spirit in which they have contributed.

Free school meals provide pupils with essential nutrition, support school attendance, improve behaviour and set children up for success by ensuring they can concentrate, learn in the classroom and get the most out of their education. They are essential to breaking down the barriers to opportunity and tackling child poverty—a task that is more important than ever because of the legacy of rising child poverty left behind by the previous Government. There are 700,000 more children in poverty now than in 2010, and more than 4 million children now grow up in low-income families.

As part of our plan for change, we are determined to tackle the scourge of child poverty and break the unfair link between background and opportunity. We have already taken wide-ranging action, despite this Government’s incredibly challenging fiscal inheritance, including by setting up the child poverty taskforce. The taskforce is considering a range of levers to tackle child poverty, including key cost drivers for households such as food, to develop a comprehensive strategy that will be published this year. That is in addition to action that we are already taking to deliver on our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. The first 750 schools will begin offering free breakfast clubs from April, backed by more than £30 million of investment, to boost attainment, attendance, behaviour and wellbeing.

It is important that children eat nutritious food at school. The Department encourages schools to take a whole-school approach to healthy eating. The school food standards restrict foods that are high in fat, salt and sugar, and ensure that schools provide children with healthy food and drink options so that they get the energy and nutrition they need across the school day. Free school meals must comply with those food standards.

Under current free meal programmes, about 2.1 million disadvantaged school-age pupils—24.6% of all pupils in state-funded schools—are already eligible to receive benefits-based free meals. A further 90,000 16 to 18-year-old students in further education are entitled to receive free meals on the basis of low income. In addition, all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 in England’s state-funded schools are entitled to universal infant free school meals. That benefits about 1.3 million children, ensuring that they receive a nutritious lunchtime meal. In total, we already spend more than £1.5 billion on delivering those programmes, and eligibility for benefits-based free meals drives the allocation of billions of additional pounds of disadvantage funding.

As a number of Members said, we want to ensure that as many eligible pupils as possible claim their free school meals, and we will make it as simple as possible for schools and local authorities to determine eligibility. To support that, we currently facilitate the process of claiming free meals through the provision of the eligibility checking service. This digital portal, available to local authorities, makes verifying eligibility for free lunches quick and simple. The checking system is being redesigned to allow parents and schools to check eligibility independently from their local authorities. This system will make it quicker and easier to check eligibility for school meals and has the potential to further boost take-up for families meeting the eligibility criteria.

In addition, we are aware of a range of measures that are being implemented by local authorities to boost the take-up of free lunches. We welcome locally led approaches. By working directly with their communities, local authorities can overcome the barriers to registering and take action to ensure that families access the support for which they are eligible, subject to these activities meeting legal requirements, including those on data protection. As with all Government programmes, we will keep our approach to free school meals under continued review.

In addition to free schools, the Government are also investing in breakfast clubs, as I have mentioned, as well as the holiday activities and food programme this year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) alluded to, we have tripled the investment in breakfast clubs to over £30 million in the 2025-26 financial year, to help to ensure that children are ready to learn at the beginning of the school day. Local authorities will also receive over £200 million of funding for the holiday activities and food programme for 2025-26, which will provide healthy meals, enriching activities and free childcare places to children from low-income families, benefiting their health, wellbeing and learning.

A number of points have been made about funding arrangements for free school meals. Schools are funded for benefits-related free meals at £490 per eligible pupil per year, and receive that as part of their wider core funding. That figure is increasing to £495 per eligible pupil for the next academic year. Universal infant free school meals and further education free meals are funded through direct grants, valued at £2.58 per child per meal. That is an increase of 2% on last year’s rate of £2.53 and reflects the latest GDP deflator inflation forecast. Funding is not ringfenced, which means that schools have autonomy over how meals are delivered, which can include entering into contracts with suppliers and allocating funding within their budgets. I can assure Members that we will continue to work closely with the school food industry to monitor sector challenges.

I look forward to meeting my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne) to discuss his views and ideas later this month, as we continue to work with local authorities to break down barriers to opportunity and deliver this Government’s plan for change. I know that he will welcome the Government’s roll-out of breakfast clubs, which on average will put £450 back into the pockets of parents, as well as ensuring that children are socialised and ready to learn at the start of the school day.

I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his contributions; a Westminster Hall debate is never as rich or courteous without his attendance. He kindly acknowledged my willingness to engage with the Minister of Education in Northern Ireland on our shared challenges. I can assure the hon. Member that I will continue to engage with the Minister.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh and a number of other Members, including the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), spoke about a range of issues to do with auto-enrolment and data-sharing initiatives by local authorities. We are aware of a range of measures that councils are implementing to boost the take-up of free lunches. To support those local efforts, and as the hon. Member for Eastleigh stated, my Department is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore legal gateways that could enable better data sharing. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with stakeholders to understand the barriers for households who meet the criteria for free lunches but are not claiming them, including by working closely with local authorities, including those mentioned in today’s debate, to understand the approaches that are being taken.

Members have raised points about the lack of data on take-up. As mentioned, data from 2013 indicates that 89% of children eligible for free school meals receive it. We have been unable to update that figure due to data limitations, which we are actively working to resolve.

The hon. Members for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young) and for Winchester (Dr Chambers) spoke about breakfast club funding. I encourage them to look at the detail of the guidance issued to schools, which will set out that an average-sized primary school with 50% take-up in the breakfast club scheme will receive around £23,000 per year as part of the early adopter scheme. For context, the previous Government’s programme would have given a similar school £1,600. This shows that the Government are delivering real investment to deliver our plan for change.

I welcome the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) back to his rightful place on the shadow Front Bench, even if it is just for this morning. As he and the hon. Member for Twickenham said, transitional protections were put in place to ensure that children whose families were moving from legacy benefits to universal credit did not lose out. We will move to the next phase of transitional protections from 31 March, and I can assure hon. Members that no pupil will feel any change until after the summer. As with all Government policy, we will keep our approach to free school meals under review.

As a number of Members have stated, the Government inherited an extremely challenging fiscal environment, including a £22 billion black hole in the public finances. The child poverty taskforce is considering in the round how we tackle the drivers of child poverty and its impact on children. Access to healthy, nutritional food will continue to be part of those conversations.

The provision of free school meals to the most disadvantaged pupils is vital. Access to healthy and nutritious meals free of charge supports the health, learning and wellbeing of some of the most disadvantaged pupils. I again thank the hon. Member for Eastleigh for securing the debate on this important subject. I also acknowledge the engagement of other Members in this place, along with the work of key stakeholders, whom I engage with regularly. We will continue to ensure that the most disadvantaged children receive the support that they need. I thank all Members for their contributions on this important matter, alongside the football banter—“Play up Pompey!” I hope it is clear from my comments that the Government are committed to breaking down the barriers to opportunity and to putting the subject of child poverty and health very much at the forefront of our agenda as a mission-led Government.

Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Stephen Morgan 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.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I welcome what the Minister says. Last week, some of us had the opportunity to attend an event where Jamie Oliver was present. He is dyslexic, and he made a point that I think we need to recognise: those with dyslexia, autism and challenging educational behaviours also need to be helped. Will a section of the population that need help like this one also receive it?

[Stephen Morgan]

The hon. Member is a tireless champion for children and young people, and he regularly writes to me even though education is a devolved matter. I will say a bit more later about the support available for children with special educational needs and disabilities. He will know that SEND is at a crisis point, and this Government are absolutely committed to reforming the system and are working at pace to do so.

New clause 20 introduces a duty for new corporate parents and local authorities in England to work collaboratively with each other when it is in the best interests of children in care and care leavers when undertaking these duties. That is to avoid siloed working or duplication of efforts, addressing the challenges that children in care and care leavers face holistically in the same way that parents do when supporting their children.

New clause 21 introduces a duty for relevant authorities to have regard to guidance issued by the Secretary of State. The guidance will set out how the duty relates to different corporate parents and how that will continue to contribute to outcomes we seek for children in care and care leavers. We will develop that guidance in partnership with the sector and with the relevant authorities listed in new schedule 1.

New clause 22 introduces a duty on the Secretary of State to report on their corporate parenting activity every three years, bringing accountability to the new duty and allowing us to monitor progress and the impact of implementation. New schedule 1 provides a power for the Secretary of State to amend the list of corporate parents by affirmative regulations. The purpose is clear: where children in care and care leavers can be further supported by the addition of new public duties as corporate parents, or where we need to make changes to existing ones, they need not wait for fresh primary legislation. We shall have the power to act swiftly and powerfully in their interests. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Members across the House share the Government’s ambition to drive a step change in the experiences and outcomes of some of the most vulnerable children and young people in society and that they will support these new clauses.

[Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Although not explicitly mentioned in the document, young carers are obviously a group of young people who may be vulnerable and, having spoken to the Department for Education, parts of the Bill will support young carers better. Will the Minister touch on that?

[Stephen Morgan]

Supporting young carers is a key priority for this Government. My hon. Friend is a real champion on these issues, and I am very happy to work with him to ensure that the views of young carers are heard in this place.

The Government have tabled amendments to the information sharing and consistent identifier duties in clause 4. The wider picture is that children are too often failed by inadequate or patchy information sharing, which is not good enough. The Bill enables us to make the change that children need, and the amendments will ensure that we get that right from the outset.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I reiterate my thanks to all right hon. and hon. Members across the House for their thoughtful contributions on a range of amendments, of which I aim to cover as many as possible in the time available.

A key pillar of this Government’s reform of children’s social care is to shift the focus towards early support to help families together and to keep them together where possible. I will therefore begin with the amendments concerning family group decision making, tabled by the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) and the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott).

On amendment 172, we agree that the voice of the child and their views are integral. In some cases, it may not be appropriate for the child to attend meetings. However, during family group decision making, the local authority must seek the views of the child where appropriate. Statutory guidance will also set out that local authorities should ensure that the facilitator has the right skills and training, and I am confident that skilled professionals will engage the child in an appropriate way.

On amendment 176, there is robust evidence that children can be diverted from care when family group decision making is offered at the pre-proceeding stage. We also encourage local authorities to offer this process as early as possible in the child’s engagement with children’s services, to support a “family first” culture.

Turning to amendment 179, if a looked-after child goes to live with a family member, the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010 already require a care plan to be in place, which must include arrangements to meet the child’s needs and must be reviewed at least every six months. It would be inappropriate to assume that every child going to live with a family member needs a child protection plan. It is right that we protect all children at risk of harm, but it is also right that we do not intervene in family life where children are safe, loved and well supported.

Turning to new clauses 25 to 28, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), I emphasise how much the Government value kinship carers; they come forward to care for some of the most vulnerable children in society, who would otherwise likely be in care. We recognise the challenges that many kinship carers face in continuing to access work alongside the pressures of raising a child unexpectedly. In October 2024, the Government announced £400 million of new funding for the kinship financial allowance pilot, which will provide a weekly financial allowance to kinship carers to support them with the additional costs incurred when taking on parental responsibility for their kin. That is the single biggest investment made by Government in kinship care to date, and decisions about future roll-out will be informed by robust evaluation.

New clause 25 would introduce a new right to kinship care leave. Employed kinship carers may already benefit from a number of workplace employment rights designed to support employees in balancing work alongside caring responsibilities—for example, unpaid parental leave for employees who have or expect to have parental responsibility, which we are making a day one right through the Employment Rights Bill. We have also committed to a review of the parental leave system to ensure that it best supports all working families.

On new clauses 27 and 28, we are providing more than £2.9 billion of pupil premium funding. Schools can direct spending where their need is greatest, including to pupils in kinship care, and such children may already be eligible for the highest admissions priority where they are or were looked after by the local authority. New section 22H(7), inserted by clause 5 of the Bill, states:

“A local authority must review and update its kinship local offer from 30 time to time”.

That gives opportunities for the views and opinions of children living in kinship care and their carers to be taken into account. I hope that the hon. Members for Twickenham and for Carshalton and Wallington (Bobby Dean) and the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks are reassured by that.

I turn to new clause 13, tabled by the hon. Member for South Devon (Caroline Voaden). Adoption is a vital part of our system, and it is important that we ensure that support is of high quality. However, Ofsted already reports regularly on adoption support in local authority children’s social care inspection reports, as well as on voluntary adoption agencies and adoption support agencies.

On new clause 3, tabled by the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), increasing support for care leavers is a key Government priority. Clause 8 of the Bill will build on existing provisions by requiring each local authority to publish the arrangements it has in place to support and assist care leavers in their transition to adulthood and independent living. That will include its arrangements for anticipating the future needs of care leavers in respect of accommodation.

I turn to the related new clause 45, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mrs Lewell-Buck), which would extend staying-put arrangements. This new clause is not needed. As part of the Bill, we require each local authority to provide eligible care leavers with staying-close support where their welfare requires it. That means that all eligible young people who leave residential care can be supported to find and keep suitable accommodation into adulthood.

I turn to amendment 184. I thank the hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) for raising the important principle of local authorities listening and responding to the wishes and feelings of eligible care leavers. As set out in Committee, when assessing and providing staying-close support, the local authority will be expected to have due regard to the accompanying duties regarding the creation and review of a young person’s pathway plan. The views of young people are expected to be considered as part of that.

I turn to new clause 47, which was also tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, and amendments 188 and 189, tabled by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks. I welcome the opportunity to discuss the quality of care in and oversight of children’s homes, and I welcome the support of the Opposition for the position—implicit in their amendment—that action needs to be taken to better equip Ofsted to deal with poor practice across children’s homes. However, we do not believe that the new clause or these amendments are required. Introducing a full inspection at provider group level would not be appropriate or a well-targeted way to use Ofsted resource. Clause 12 is deliberately designed in a way that supplements the existing robust regime for inspection of individual settings, which ensures that Ofsted can take the quickest and most effective action to safeguard vulnerable children.

Amendment 189 would give local authorities the power to issue an improvement plan notice to a children’s home for minor concerns or admin breaches following a regulation 44 visit, which would add little value over and above what is already in place under existing regulations. It is also not clear what would constitute a minor concern or what regulatory action could follow; it risks muddying the waters of accountability and responsibility. There are already mandatory national minimum standards through the Supported Accommodation (England) Regulations 2023 and Ofsted registration and inspection requirements for providers accommodating 16 to 19-year-old looked-after children and care leavers.

New clause 14 relates to a notification for when a child is placed into temporary accommodation. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) for her significant campaigning on this issue—I know that this morning she met with my ministerial colleagues, who will follow up with her directly. As she said in her contribution, too many children are spending years in temporary accommodation at a point in their lives when they need space to play and develop, as well as nutritious food to thrive, and access to education. Although we do not accept the new clause, I understand the rationale behind it and commit to continuing to work with my hon. Friend on the matter.

I turn to children placed in secure accommodation. Depriving a child of their liberty must always be a last resort, and it is of paramount importance that any restrictions placed on a child are appropriate and for no longer than absolutely necessary. However, I do not think that amendments 185 to 187 are necessary. A statutory regime already exists when children are being deprived of their liberty under section 25 of the Children Act 1989, and this measure would extend that to relevant accommodation. The Bill gives powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations for relevant accommodation and to set a maximum period beyond which a child may not be deprived of their liberty without the authorisation of the court. We also intend to bring forward regulations to require local authorities to seek approval from the Secretary of State before depriving of their liberty children who are under the age of 13 and in relevant accommodation.

I turn to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato). Protecting children at risk of abuse is at the heart of this Bill. Regarding the common law defence of reasonable chastisement, we are looking closely at the legal changes made in Wales and Scotland, but we have no plans to legislate at this stage. Wales is in the process of reviewing the impact of changing the law, and will publish its findings by the end of 2025. We want to look at the evidence before taking such a significant legislative step.

I now turn to new clause 4, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood. All children must have an assessment of their health when they become looked after. Existing regulations require that that assessment must be completed by a registered medical practitioner, include assessment of emotional and mental health, and be kept under review.

New clause 37, tabled by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks, is not required. Robust protections are already in place where proceedings have been initiated. Pre-proceedings will almost always be initiated when a local authority has determined that child protection activity is not sufficient to keep a child safe and promote their welfare. The initiation of proceedings will not result in automatic discharge of a child protection plan; such a plan can be discharged only through a decision taken at the child protection conference between multi-agency practitioners who have been working with the child and their family.

One area in which the Government have not wasted any time is taking action against child sexual abuse. New clauses 15 and 50, covering recommendations of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, are addressed by the steps that this Government have taken and will take to deliver the change and the justice that victims deserve. In January, the Home Secretary made a statement to the House confirming that the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations of the final IICSA report, including establishing a child protection authority.

As the Home Secretary stated, the cross-Government ministerial group is considering the working through of the remaining recommendations, supported by a new victims and survivors panel. The Government will also be implementing all the remaining recommendations of the IICSA’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022. As part of that, we will update key guidance on child sexual exploitation. Second Reading saw political opportunism of the worst kind from the official Opposition, and I would like to take this opportunity at the Dispatch Box to condemn it. The Home Secretary, the Education Secretary and the Minister for combating violence against women and girls all have a track record of standing up against that abuse, and they are acting decisively in Government.

Let me turn now to the new bandwagon that the Conservatives have jumped on, that of mobile phone use in schools, and to new clause 36. Phones have no place in schools. That is what the Education Secretary said last week, and it is as simple as that. Teachers and headteachers have the Government’s full backing in ridding our classrooms of the disruption caused by phones, and they already have the means to do so. We will be checking that that is happening, strengthening Government monitoring of implementation of the guidance to ensure that our classrooms are phone-free.

However, I must note—as a number of Members have mentioned tonight—that just a year ago the Conservatives claimed that their action meant mobile phones were prohibited in schools, and that their guidance meant a consistent approach across all schools. That begs the question: what has changed? Not only does the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks seem to have missed the Education Secretary’s statements; she has missed the Secretary of State for Science and Technology already announcing the studies that she is asking for. Those studies are being conducted by the University of Cambridge and will report back before the end of the school year. She has even missed the Health Secretary confirming just this month that the chief medical officer will consider the impact of phones and advice for parents.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Morgan]

Of course we hear parents’ concerns about screen time, but this is a wider issue across the board that is not exclusive to schools. It is an issue on which we are already acting across Government to make sure that parents and teachers are supported in ensuring that children’s safety and wellbeing are protected. [Interruption.]

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)]

Order. I cannot hear the Minister speak, so I assume that nobody else can.

[Stephen Morgan]

The right hon. Member for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) had the opportunity to speak in the debate, but he has chosen to turn up at the very end to make an intervention. It just shows what his interest is in these issues.

We take these matters seriously, because we take children’s wellbeing seriously. The clue is in the name—Labour’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. The measures in the Bill to protect children from harm, improve their schools and save their education from causing financial distress to their parents all relate to their wellbeing, and we know that mental health goes hand in hand with wellbeing. I was at this very Dispatch Box just last week to discuss the support we are offering in schools, and we will of course have more time to talk about those issues further. I understand that new clause 29 seeks to be supportive on this matter. The Government recognise the importance of understanding trends in the wellbeing of children and young people; indeed, schools are already encouraged to measure pupil wellbeing.

Free School Meals (Automatic Registration of Eligible Children) Bill

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 14th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) for his Bill and for providing the opportunity to consider the importance that free, nutritious meals have in breaking the link between background and achievement. He is a true champion for his constituents and for children and families across the country. I was delighted to meet him to discuss the Bill and hear how passionate he is about our opportunity mission. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), who has been a champion for free school meal provision in this place for a considerable time. I also thank her for her leadership on the APPG.

I am proud to serve under this mission-driven Government who are breaking down the barriers to opportunity for every child in every part of our country. We currently spend about £1.5 billion annually on free lunches for 2.1 million school pupils under benefits-based free school meals alongside over 90,000 disadvantaged students in further education and about 1.3 million infants under universal infant free school meals.

We consider the aim of those measures at their core to be to ensure that those who need it get the support that they are entitled to, which is a goal that we are supportive of. Free lunch programmes provide pupils with essential nutrition, support attendance and ultimately ensure that pupils can concentrate, learn and get the most out of their education. They are essential to breaking down barriers to opportunity and tackling child poverty: a task that is more important than ever as a result of the legacy of rising child poverty left behind by the previous Government. Shamefully, there are 700,000 more children in poverty than in 2010, and over 4 million children are now growing up in a low-income family. That is why I am proud of a new ministerial taskforce that is working urgently to develop a child poverty strategy to address that.

The child poverty taskforce is considering a range of levers to tackle child poverty, including key cost drivers for households such as food, to develop a comprehensive strategy that will be published later this year. That is in addition to action that we are already taking to deliver on our mission to break down barriers to opportunity by rolling out free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school, providing food and childcare to children and to socialise them before the school day as well as put more money back into parents’ pockets—on average £450 a year. Further, the holiday activities and food programme, which is established in every local authority area in England and delivers vital support to children and families during school holidays, will again receive more than £200 million in 2025-26.

We facilitate the claiming of free meals by providing the eligibility checking system, a digital portal available to local authorities that makes verifying eligibility for free lunches quick and simple. I can tell the House that the checking system has been redesigned to allow parents and schools to check eligibility independently from their local authorities. This system will make it quicker and easier to check eligibility for school meals, and has the potential to further boost take-up by families meeting the eligibility criteria.

Further to that, my Department is aware of a range of measures that are being implemented by local authorities to boost the take-up of free lunches. We welcome locally led approaches and I am personally keen to learn from them. By working directly with their communities, local authorities can overcome the barriers to registering and take action to ensure that families have access to the support for which they are eligible, subject to those activities meeting legal requirements, including those on data protection.

To support those local efforts, my Department is working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology on exploring legal gateways that can enable better data sharing. In the meantime, we will continue to engage with a range of stakeholders, including families and young people, as I have done personally, to understand the barriers for households that meet the criteria for a free lunch but are not claiming them, including through working closely with local authorities to understand the approaches that they have taken.

In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley for bringing forward this Bill. We all agree that it addresses a matter of great importance. I hope it is apparent from my remarks that the Government are supportive of the aims of the Bill. We are working with the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology to explore legal gateways that could enable better data sharing, and there is further consideration of improving free school meal enrolment through the work of the child poverty taskforce. This Government are determined to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child. Our work to simplify enrolment is important to achieving that aim. We are confident that the actions I have outlined will improve take-up of free meals, alongside the local work being trialled by many local authorities across the country. For that reason, I hope that my hon. Friend can be encouraged to withdraw his Bill while we continue to explore enrolment and keep free school meals under review.

Mental Health Support: Educational Settings

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Thursday 13th March 2025 Commons Chamber

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Chris Bloore) for securing a debate on such an important subject, which rightly invites considerable cross-party support.

We know that one third of adult mental ill health originates before age 14, and six in 10 of those that suffer from mental ill health have their first onset by age 25, meaning that childhood and early adulthood is a critical period for early interventions and prevention. That is why this Government have set a bold new ambition to raise the healthiest generation of children in our history, which of course includes their mental health and wellbeing.

We have seen increases in mental health issues in children. NHS surveys suggest that around 20% of 8 to 16-year-olds had a probable mental health disorder in 2023, up from 13% in 2017. The wellbeing and life satisfaction of children and young people also show cause for concern. Long-term reductions in the wellbeing of children and young people are a common trend across countries, and we have to acknowledge that England and the UK report among the lowest levels of average life satisfaction among participating countries.

There is no one simple reason for that, and rising mental health challenges are an international phenomenon. The ongoing impacts of covid-19, brought about by school closures and reduced opportunities for social and emotional development, are a factor, as are changes in health behaviours, such as low physical activity, increased eating and sleeping problems and increased screen time and social media use—points made by a number of Members this afternoon. There is also a wider range of contributing societal factors and ongoing national and global issues, such as the economic outlook, international conflict and climate change. The relative influence of those different drivers is complex, and taken together they show the scale of the challenge that we face.

[Helen Hayes]

Among children and young people who suffer the most acute mental health challenges are looked-after children and young people, all of whom will have experienced some kind of adverse childhood experience or trauma resulting in their being taken into the care system. My Committee heard evidence a couple of weeks ago from children and young people who talked about the lack of adequate assessment of their mental health when they are taken into care and when they move placements. They called for a strengthening of the regulations around that so that their mental health and wellbeing are properly taken into account. I have tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, which we will discuss early next week. Will the Minister give a commitment to look at that and see whether we can make the support better for children who are looked after?

[Stephen Morgan]

I know that my hon. Friend is a real champion of looked-after children. We will certainly look at those proposals and at all the work the Education Committee does to support the most vulnerable children in society.

Prevention is vital, and schools and colleges can naturally play a preventive role in what they do from day to day. Attainment is a vital factor in longer-term mental health, as it helps young people to access the things they want to do in life, in further study and in jobs. The best schools and colleges set high standards and expectations, and support children to overcome barriers to their learning, including those with special educational needs and disabilities. We also understand that a child’s experience of school helps them to both achieve and thrive. Education settings also support the social and emotional development of their pupils through what is taught in lessons, extracurricular activity and pastoral support.

Pupils who are thriving, with positive subjective wellbeing and a strong sense of belonging, accomplishment, autonomy and good health, achieve better educational outcomes and are more likely to attend school. They are better equipped to face issues in their lives, which is important. Not every child facing mental health issues will need clinical interventions; the support that they get from their friends, families and school or college staff can be what they need. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), I acknowledge and recognise the many thousands of school leaders, teachers and staff who are committed to promoting and supporting the mental health and wellbeing of their pupils every day through the things that they do to make school a safe, supportive and inclusive place for children, by supporting their specific needs and by working with parents, families and other community services.

We know that as many as nine in 10 schools have a designated lead for students’ mental health and that more than three quarters of them have benefited from DFE-funded training, helping leaders to embed effective whole-school or whole-college approaches to mental health and wellbeing. Nevertheless, schools and colleges themselves need support with what to do and cannot deal with every issue that pupils have.

That is why, as a Government, we have committed to provide access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, so that every young person has access to early support to address problems before they escalate. That commitment will be delivered through the expansion of NHS-funded mental health support teams, which will work in schools and colleges to offer early support through evidence-based one-to-one and group interventions. They will liaise with specialist services and support leads to develop their holistic approach to mental health and wellbeing. Those functions, supervised by a clinical professional, are what make mental health support teams such a valuable resource. I have seen that important work at first hand on visits to education settings in Brighton, Manchester and Rugby. By April 2025, we expect those teams to cover over 50% of children and young people in schools and colleges, and plans for further expansion are being drawn up with the NHS to achieve 100% coverage as soon as is practically possible.

[Munira Wilson]

The Minister has referred to access to specialist mental health support. For the benefit of the House, could he clarify what level of resource he expects that to be—will it be half a day a week, a day a week, or full-time equivalent? The previous commitment had been a counsellor in every school.

[Stephen Morgan]

I can assure the hon. Member that there will be access to mental health professionals in every school. We are working on the detail of that as we speak, and will announce more in due course.

[Siân Berry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will make some progress, if I may. The pace of the roll-out of mental health support teams will be determined by local needs. It represents a substantial investment in workforce growth and training through this Parliament. Further announcements will be made in the spring.

[Siân Berry]

Will the Minister give way?

[Stephen Morgan]

I am going to carry on.

We recognise that our pledge that every school will have access to specialist mental health professionals is not the whole answer. Schools are facing their own pressures, and rely on health professionals for diagnoses and treatment of their pupils’ mental health needs. We all know from our own postbags and inboxes, as well as from the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch, that the waiting lists for those referred for specialist support are too high. The Department of Health and Social Care is working to bring waiting times down and intervene earlier. In addition, the Government will put in place the new Young Futures hubs, including access to mental health support workers, and recruit 8,500 new mental health staff to treat children and adults.

As well as targeted mental health support, we must tackle the wider drivers affecting children and young people’s mental health. For instance, my Department’s comprehensive child poverty strategy will be central to unlocking opportunity and giving every child the best start in life. In addition, we recognise the importance of monitoring and understanding trends in the wellbeing of children and young people, and are already closely monitoring national data and research on children and young people’s mental health and wellbeing, and encouraging schools to measure pupils’ wellbeing.

Since becoming the Minister for early education, I have seen and heard about incredible work going on in schools and colleges across the country, and have listened to the issues education staff continue to have. It brings me real joy to engage directly with children and young people across the country. My Department will continue to support education staff and provide a range of guidance and practical resources to help schools embed effective whole-school or whole-college approaches to mental health and wellbeing, such as a resources hub for mental health leads and a toolkit to help choose evidence-based early support for pupils. I recognise that there is interest across the House in a number of different forms of support, such as counselling provision, as we have heard this afternoon. We believe that schools are best placed to choose what provision best meets the needs of their pupils, but we will ensure that resources are in place to help schools do this well.

[Siân Berry]

Does the Minister agree that what has been announced today falls short? Access to services that are available in a local area—presumably by appointment, and in a different setting—does not constitute the same availability of support as having properly qualified counsellors in schools.

[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.

Oral Answers to Questions

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Commons Chamber

[Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

11. What steps she is taking to help reduce the cost of sending children to school.

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

Our Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill will introduce free breakfast clubs in all state-funded primary schools in England, and measures to help with the cost of school uniforms. Breakfast clubs will save families up to £450 a year, putting money directly back into parents’ pockets. Our action is urgent, which is why we are rolling out 750 early adopters from April—we are getting on with delivering the change that we promised. Limiting the number of branded uniform items will give parents more flexibility, keeping costs down for families and saving some parents over £50 on the back-to-school shop.

[Abtisam Mohamed]

I thank the Minister for his answer and congratulate the Department on its excellent work on the child poverty taskforce. Lesson time and learning are being significantly affected by high levels of child poverty. Schools in Sheffield Central tell me that many low-income families are really struggling financially. Will the Minister confirm what specific action the Government are taking to turn the tide on child poverty and put money back into people’s pockets?

[Stephen Morgan]

There is no challenge more crucial for this Government than tackling child poverty. The taskforce has started the urgent work of publishing the strategy, which will look at levers across four key themes: increasing incomes, reducing essential costs, increasing financial resilience, and better local support, especially in early years.

[Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)]

Parents whose children have special educational needs and disabilities do not wish to send their children to far-away schools, but they have to, because of a lack of local provision. If the children are over the age of 16, however, it is at the discretion of the local authority to decide whether to meet the cost of transporting them to school, even though education is effectively compulsory until the age of 18. Many local authorities, including in Leicester South, are now passing that cost entirely on to parents. Will the Minister commit to dealing with SEND transport costs in the Department’s work to reduce the cost of sending children to school?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will happily meet the hon. Member to discuss those issues further.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

The Child Poverty Action Group estimates that the parent of a child in secondary school spends, on average, over £480 a year on school uniforms. The Government’s move to limit the number of branded uniform items to three or four is well intentioned, but there is nothing to stop the overinflation of the price of those items. A cap on costs, reviewed annually, would not just guarantee pounds and pennies saved for parents, but give schools the freedom to set their own uniform policies, rather than Ministers in Whitehall telling headteachers and school governors what to do. Will Ministers think again and back the Liberal Democrat amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill next week?

[Stephen Morgan]

School uniform plays a valuable role in creating a sense of common identity and reducing visible inequalities among pupils. The Liberal Democrat spokesperson made a number of points in the Bill Committee, and the Department will certainly take forward her views and ideas.

[Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)]

12. What recent assessment she has made of trends in the number of school exclusions of pupils with special educational needs and disabilities.

[Stephen Morgan]

Every child has the right to succeed in education. We publish data termly and review trends, including where pupils with SEND are disproportionately affected by exclusions. We know that some groups of children are at higher risk of exclusion, which is why the Government are breaking down barriers to opportunity by ensuring early intervention in mainstream schools for all pupils, including those at risk of exclusion. We are clear that schools have a legal duty not to discriminate against pupils with SEND under the Equality Act 2010.

[Pippa Heylings]

Too many children with SEND in South Cambridgeshire are out of school, due not only to exclusion but to the long waiting times for specialist or alternative provision when mainstream schools cannot meet their needs. I was shocked to hear about Harry, a constituent of mine who has been receiving just two hours of forest school a week for the past 15 months as his only education—15 months! What urgent action is the Minister taking to increase specialist and alternative provision, so that children like Harry can get the full and adequate education they need and deserve?

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the hon. Member for sharing Harry’s story—I know she is a champion for such issues in her constituency. The Government’s ambition is for all children with SEND to receive the right support to succeed. The curriculum assessment review will look at how barriers to exclusion can be removed and high standards supported for children, to support further the vision that the Department announced. There is also £740 million for the high needs capital block next year.

[Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Permanent exclusion from primary school should be an almost non-existent occurrence. Any primary-age pupils exhibiting difficult behaviours should undertake diagnosis for SEND, and best efforts should be made to understand any trauma that the child may have suffered. What is the Minister doing to ensure that we build a system that prioritises the early identification of needs and quick delivery of intervention, so that children do not fall behind?

[Stephen Morgan]

We are aware that some groups of children have a higher risk of exclusion, which is why we are breaking down barriers to opportunity, to ensure that every child can achieve and thrive. We are committed to ensuring earlier intervention in mainstream schools for pupils, particularly those at risk of exclusion.

[Jack Rankin (Windsor) (Con)]

14. What steps she is taking to improve management accountability at multi-academy trusts.

--- Later in debate ---

[Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)]

18. What recent progress she has made on school building programmes.

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

We have committed £1.4 billion for 2025/26 to continue the current school rebuilding programme, which is rebuilding or significantly refurbishing buildings at 518 schools and sixth form colleges across England. All projects have been given indicative timelines for delivery, based on prioritisation of need. Around half have been commenced so far, and are at various stages of delivery.

[Josh Fenton-Glynn]

Cross Lane primary school, Shade primary school, Brooksbank school, Calder high school, Todmorden high school and Walsden Saint Peter’s Church of England primary school are among 11 Calder Valley schools to be rebuilt under this Government, where the last Government failed. Will the Minister confirm that under this Government no children will be left learning in classrooms that are not fit for purpose?

[Stephen Morgan]

Along with my hon. Friend, I am delighted that so many schools in his constituency are receiving significant investment through the school rebuilding programme. Ensuring that schools and colleges have the resources and buildings that they need is a key part of our plan to break down barriers to opportunity and ensure that every child gets the best start in life.

[Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

The Minister may remember that the last Labour Government had Building Schools for the Future. Some £55 billion was spent on buildings and IT to transform education—except buildings and IT do not transform education. There was global evidence to back that up, because building schools is not a new thing. Can the Minister reassure the House that we will never have a repeat of that extravagant and wasted programme, but that we will ensure we have functional schools with brilliant teachers able to teach our children?

[Stephen Morgan]

Ensuring that schools and colleges have the resources and buildings that they need is key to our mission to break down barriers to opportunity. I will take no lectures from the Conservative party on education.

[Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)]

T2.   Red Hall primary school in my constituency of Dudley is split down the middle by Zoar Street. The theft of lead from the Victorian roofs, leakages and no real playground do not make an environment for children to thrive. In 2010, the Conservatives shelved the plans to consolidate and repair the school on one side of the road. Will the Minister meet with me to discuss reopening those plans?

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

This Government have increased capital funding to improve the condition of school buildings to £2.1 billion for the next financial year. This will include funding for Dudley local authority to invest in improving the condition of its maintained schools, including Red Hall primary school. Capital funding and programmes for schools beyond 2025-26 will be confirmed following the spending review. I would be very happy to meet my hon. Friend, who is a real champion for children in her constituency.

[Rosie Duffield (Canterbury) (Ind)]

T9.   The University of Kent, which is the largest employer in my constituency, is making yet more redundancies due to the enormous debt it owes to international banks. Will the Secretary of State commit to holding crisis meetings with desperate universities and their creditors, to help secure more sustainable terms and a potential way out of the financial emergency that they face?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lloyd Hatton (South Dorset) (Lab)]

T3. The previous Government failed to build much-needed new school buildings at Dorset studio school, and failed for years to open the proposed Osprey Quay special school for children with special educational needs. Dorset studio school urgently needs a new home, and families in my patch are hugely in need of a SEND school at the Osprey Quay site, so can the Minister outline what steps the Government are taking to get those two crucial projects over the line?

[Stephen Morgan]

The feasibility and project costs for those projects are currently being reviewed, and the relevant approvals will then be sought. I will ensure that my hon. Friend is kept up to date on progress. Ensuring that schools and colleges have the resources and buildings they need is key to our delivery of the opportunity mission and to give every child the best start in life.

[Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Great teaching and great policies saw children in England soar up the international league tables under the last Government to become the best in the western world. I think that the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill risks that progress. If the Secretary of State disagrees, will she put her money where her mouth is and resign if England falls down the international league tables?

--- Later in debate ---

[Katie White (Leeds North West) (Lab)]

T7. I welcome the progress that the Secretary of State and her team have made. It is clear that she is moving at pace to increase opportunities for all. Will she update the House on what progress she has made on our commitment to deliver mental health support in schools?

[Stephen Morgan]

The Government are committed to improving mental health support, and access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, to help young people to achieve and thrive. We will work closely with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS who will lead on services, including mental health support teams. They are recruiting 8,500 additional mental health staff to treat children and adults, getting on with delivering the promise we made at the last election.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

What formal assessment have Ministers made, or will they make, of the benefits to children’s mental health and physical health, resilience and ability to learn of investing in more opportunities for residential outdoor education experiences?

[Stephen Morgan]

The hon. Member raises a number of important points. Enriching opportunities for children and young people are a key part of our breaking down the barriers to opportunity. I am happy to meet him if he has particular examples that he wishes to share.

[James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)]

T8. Parents in my rural constituency often express concerns about the limited school options, which almost always involve travelling some distance, but free transport is available only to the nearest school. What steps are being taken to review school transport costs overall? Will the limited school options available to rural parents be considered when updating the home-to-school travel policy?

Draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 General Committees

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

I beg to move,

That the Committee has considered the draft Higher Education (Fee Limits and Fee Limit Condition) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2025. 

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this evening, Ms Furniss. This statutory instrument, which was laid in draft on 20 January 2025, increases the limits on tuition fees that higher education providers can charge students studying undergraduate courses at approved fee cap providers in the 2025-26 academic year. This SI also introduces new lower tuition fee limits for foundation years in classroom-based subjects offered by approved fee cap providers, starting in the 2025-26 academic year.

Our higher education sector is part of what makes our country great. The sector makes a vital contribution to powering our economy, delivering world-leading research and innovation, enriching our society, supporting communities and opening up opportunities for individuals. From my personal experience—I was the first in my family to go to university—I know that the sector is a beacon of opportunity that everyone in this House ought to be proud of.

But this world-leading sector is now facing severe financial challenges. With tuition fees frozen for the last seven years, universities have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income. Teaching income per UK student has declined in real terms since 2015-16 and is now approaching its lowest level since 1997. The Office for Students reports that a growing number of higher education providers are facing significant financial difficulty. Its analysis suggests that, by 2025-26, up to 72% of providers could be in deficit, and 40% face low liquidity if no mitigating action is taken.

We need to act now to put our higher education sector on a secure footing to face the challenges of the next decade, and to ensure that all students can have confidence that they will receive the world-class higher education they deserve. We also need to ensure that students receive value from their investment.

Taking each of those objectives in turn, this SI is intended to fix the foundations and put this vital sector on a more secure footing. It will mean that, from 1 August 2025, tuition fee limits for undergraduate courses will increase by 3.1%, in line with forecast inflation, based on the retail prices index excluding mortgage interest payments inflation measure. That means an increase to £9,535 for a standard full-time course, £11,440 for a full-time accelerated course, and £7,145 for a part-time course.

The decision to increase maximum fees has not been easy, but it is necessary to ensure that our higher education sector can continue to contribute to our economic growth, our globally important research and our local communities, and can continue to open up opportunities for those who wish to participate in higher education. Members on both sides of this Committee will agree that it is no use keeping tuition fees down if there are no universities for students to attend, or if students are not receiving the quality of education that they deserve and that is needed to meet the skills needs of our economy now and in the future.

I understand that some students may worry about the affordability of higher education, but I reassure them that eligible students will continue to be able to apply for up-front fee loans to meet the full cost of their tuition, and that when they start repaying their loan, they will not see higher monthly repayments as a result of these fee changes. That is because monthly repayments depend on earnings, and at the end of their loan term, any outstanding loan balance will be written off. We will also be working with the sector to ensure that it does more to improve access for those from disadvantaged backgrounds, and to deliver the very best outcomes both for students and for the country.

This SI also focuses on improving efficiency and delivering value for students. Lower fee limits will be introduced for undergraduates starting foundation years in classroom-based subjects in the 2025-26 academic year: £5,760 for a full-time course and £4,315 for a part-time course. The Government recognise the importance of foundation years for promoting access to higher education, but there has been a rapid and disproportionate growth of foundation years in classroom-based subjects that can be delivered more efficiently at a lower cost to students. To be clear, providers offering foundation years in all other subjects, such as those in science, technology, engineering and maths and the creative arts, will be able to charge fees up to the new fee limits of £9,535 for a standard full-time undergraduate course and £7,145 for a part-time course.

This SI will put our higher education sector on a more secure footing, enabling the sector to continue delivering the world-class higher education that both current students and future generations deserve. I hope that hon. Members will support these important regulations, which I commend to the Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the shadow Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for York Central for their contributions. First, I reiterate the importance of the statutory instrument in putting our higher education sector on a secure footing and ensuring that students receive value from their investment. Committee members will know the sector’s importance for economic growth. They will know about its world-leading research and contribution to local communities, as well as how it changes the lives of those who participate in it.

Providers have suffered a significant real-terms decline in their income, following seven years of frozen tuition fees, and we need to act now to ensure that future generations of students can benefit from our world-class higher education sector. However, we are clear that in universities, as across our public services, investment can come only with the promise of major reform. That was why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education announced in the House on 4 November last year that we will publish a plan for higher education reform in the summer.

The shadow Minister made a number of points about national insurance contributions. As the Chancellor set out in the Budget, raising the revenue needed to fund public services and restore economic stability requires difficult decisions on tax. That is why the Government are asking employers to contribute more. We strongly believe that that is the fairest choice to help to fund the NHS and wider national priorities. The higher education finance and funding system needs to work for students, taxpayers and providers. The fee increase represents a significant additional investment from students into the sector, and we will support higher education providers in managing the financial challenges that they are facing.

On student loan repayments, we understand that some students might worry about the impact that the increased fee limits will have on the size of their loan. We want to reassure students that, when they start repaying their loan, they will not see higher monthly repayments as a result of changes to fee and maintenance loans. That is because student loans are not like consumer loans; monthly repayments depend on earnings, not simply the amount borrowed or interest rates. At the end of any loan term, any remaining loan balance, including interest that has built up, will be cancelled.

The shadow Minister asked about graduate earnings. On average, graduates benefit from their university education by over £100,000 in their lifetime compared with someone who did not go through higher education. He also asked about the press coverage of the University of Greater Manchester. Of course, that is a matter for the university, but we understand that the Office for Students—the independent regulator for HE in England—has been notified of this case. The university is conducting its own investigation and it would not be appropriate to comment any further at this stage.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central, who is a real champion of higher education for her constituents and her community, made helpful points about quality. Students and the taxpayer have a right to expect a good-quality education in return for their considerable investment in higher education. For their investment, students deserve excellent teaching that supports them to learn and develop the skills that they need to achieve their full potential. That was why we made a commitment to raise university teaching standards in our manifesto, and we want higher education providers to collaborate, share best practice and deliver continuous improvement in the quality of their provision. Students also deserve to know what to expect when making their investment in higher education. We want providers to be transparent about the things that matter to students, such as the number of contact hours that they can expect when studying specific courses.

On international higher education students, the Education Secretary, in her speech in July 2024, made it clear that we welcome international students who have a positive impact on UK higher education, and on our economy and society as a whole. International students enrich our university campuses, forge lifelong friendships with domestic students and become global ambassadors for the UK. Our universities have taught dozens of current and recent world leaders. This gives us an enormous amount of soft power and also builds strong relationships, which is why we offer international students who successfully complete their studies the opportunity to work, or look for work, in the UK on a graduate visa for two or three years after their studies finish, allowing them to live and work here, and to contribute to our society and economy.

[Rachael Maskell]

I am grateful for what the Minister says, but we know that the changes in visa requirements have had a major impact on higher education. I urge him to take that back to the Department and look at the changes again so that our universities can welcome students and their dependents into our country.

[Stephen Morgan]

My hon. Friend is being kind to me, as she knows I am not the Government spokesperson on higher education, but I will ensure that my colleague who does lead on it takes that point back to the Department.

My hon. Friend the Member for York Central made a number of helpful points about access and participation. Our mission is to break down the link between background and success that has hampered the life chances of too many in this country. We are committed to supporting the aspiration of every person who meets the requirements and wants to go to university. We know that there are stubborn and persistent inequalities within our education system, and those must be addressed. It is vital that all higher education providers play a stronger role in expanding access and improving outcomes for disadvantaged students.

By summer, we will set out our plan for higher education reform and the part that we expect providers to play in that. Through our reform, we are determined to ensure that universities are engines of opportunity, fairness and growth. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Early Education and Childcare

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Monday 24th February 2025 Written Statements

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

This Government are committed to giving children the best start in life, breaking the link between background and opportunity. We are ensuring that families in every community across the country can access affordable childcare places that deliver high-quality early education for children.

In our plan for change, we have set a milestone of a record proportion of children starting school ready to learn. We will measure our progress through 75% of five-year-olds reaching a good level of development in the early years foundation stage profile assessment by 2028.

Already in 2025-26, we plan to provide a £2 billion increase in funding for the entitlements compared to 2024-25, to deliver the roll-out of 30 hours of funded childcare from 9 months of age in eligible working families. On top of this, we have announced the largest single uplift to the early years pupil premium since its introduction, increasing the EYPP to £1 per hour in 2025-26, equivalent to up to £570 per eligible child per year. We are investing in quality early education for those children who need it most, in the areas that need it most.

Expansion grant funding

September 2025 marks a critical stage in the roll-out of the new entitlements when the new childcare entitlements will increase to 30 hours. To support delivery of this key milestone, on top of core funding, we are providing a £75 million expansion grant that will specifically target providers with children who are using the new entitlements. We plan to publish local authority allocations for this grant by the end of the month, and will expect to ask local authorities to confirm provider allocations within 6 weeks of publication.

Clarifying guidance on additional charges

As we set out in the autumn, we are taking action to protect parents from reported instances of very high additional charges or “top-up” fees on top of their entitlement, ensuring the funded hours remain accessible and affordable for families, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds where it makes the biggest difference. We have therefore updated the statutory guidance on Government-funded entitlements that relates to additional charges, helping local authorities ensure there is clarity and consistency for parents and providers.

The changes also put transparency at the heart of how the entitlement should be passed on to parents, including that all costs should be clear to parents up front and greater clarification of what are considered “consumables” including nappies, suncream and lunch. The guidance also reaffirms, in line with a recent High Court judgment, that while providers can charge for some extras these charges must not be mandatory.

Maths champions and stronger practice hubs

We are focused on growth, working with the early years sector to meet the challenges of creating the places needed for September 2025, but we will not compromise on quality as we deliver on our plan for change for a record proportion of children starting school ready to learn.

The maths champions programme helps early years educators to support children with core maths skills. This year, staff from 800 early years settings will benefit from the maths champions programme, double the number from the previous year. This evidence-based training is delivered by the National Day Nurseries Association through the Education Endowment Foundation. The EEF evidence of the programme shows that children in settings who had maths champions made the equivalent of three months’ additional progress in maths. The first cohort of this year’s settings are starting the programme this month.

Further, we are driving quality early education through the stronger practice hubs programme, with up to £6.1 million in funding for financial year 2025-26. These hubs provide free support and advice to improve quality in early years settings, sharing evidence-informed practice and building lasting local networks.

Together, these latest actions are the next big step in delivering on our plan for change, building a reformed early years system that is sustainable for providers and better serves children and their families.

[HCWS465]

Education

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Wednesday 12th February 2025 Written Corrections

The following extract is from the eighth sitting of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee on 30 January 2025.

[Stephen Morgan]

With regard to the consent for home education, if someone has ever been subject to a safeguarding concern, we believe that this is a proportionate response that focuses on the most vulnerable.

[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 297.]

Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan):

[Stephen Morgan]

With regard to the consent for home education, if someone is subject to certain safeguarding concerns, we believe that this is a proportionate response that focuses on the most vulnerable.

Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Fourteenth sitting)

Stephen Morgan Excerpts

Committee stage
Tuesday 11th February 2025 Public Bill Committees

[The Chair]

I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:

New clause 22—School attendance policies—

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

“443A School attendance policies

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) The proprietor must ensure—

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

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

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

New clause 23—Penalty notices: regulations—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(3) In subsection (2), omit “to which this section applies”.

(4) After subsection (2) insert—

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

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

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. Before we adjourned, I was about to turn to new clause 24. I appreciate the concern of hon. Members in this matter and their desire for academies to follow rules on granting a leave of absence. One of the many ways in which schools encourage regular attendance is by making clear to parents the circumstances under which leave of absence can and cannot be granted. All schools, however, including academies, are already required to have regard to statutory attendance guidance and are expected to follow the rules on granting a leave of absence.

Headteachers understand the responsibilities and know how important it is that children are in school. We have very little, if any, evidence of misuse of power in academies or big increases in the number of leaves of absence. All the indications are that academy heads follow the guidance and apply the exceptional circumstances test to relevant requests for leave, only granting them where it is met. We will continue to monitor this and support them to make school the best place to be for every child, but new clause 24 would not help us to do that. I invite the hon. Member to withdraw new clause 21.

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 25

Report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees

“(1) The Secretary of State must, within two years of the passing of this Act, publish a report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.

(2) A report published under subsection (1) must include the following information—

(a) how many private schools have closed as a result of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees;

(b) how many pupils have moved school because of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees;

(c) an analysis, considering paragraphs (a) and (b), of the impact of the decision to charge VAT on private school fees on maintained and academy schools, including on—

(i) the availability of school places nationally and in areas where private schools have closed;

(ii) the percentage of children which are placed at their first-choice school; and

(iii) the number of schools which have had to increase their Publish Admissions Number.”—(Neil O'Brien.)

This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees.

Brought up, and read the First time.

[Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)]

I rise to speak in support of new clause 25, which seeks to monitor the impact of VAT on private school fees. There is, however, something missing in the new clause, which I have urged Ministers repeatedly to look at. I hope that even if they will not publicly talk about it, they are looking privately at the impact of this policy on the 100,000 children with special educational needs in private schools who do not have education, health and care plans, and may be displaced into the state sector. That will have an impact on the state sector and the demand for EHCPs, which is already in crisis. When Ministers respond, I hope they might address that point.

[Stephen Morgan]

New clause 25 would introduce a requirement for the Government to publish a report within two years of passing of the Bill on the impact of removing VAT exemption on private school fees. The report would need to provide details of any private school closures, the number of pupils from private schools who have moved schools, the availability of state school places at local and national level, what percentage of children are offered a place at their parents’ first-choice school, and whether any admissions authorities have increased their published admissions numbers as a result of VAT policy.

Before proceeding any further, I would like to note that the issue of VAT on private school fees has been subject to extensive debate during the course of the Finance Bill and the Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. As the Government have noted on many occasions now, a thorough impact assessment of the removal of VAT exemption has been conducted. A comprehensive tax impact and information note was published alongside the autumn Budget and provides much of the information sought by the hon. Members for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich. This policy, as Members will be aware, took effect from 1 January 2025.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Does the Minister not accept that there is a fundamental difference between a projection of what is expected to happen and the reporting on what has actually happened? It is the latter that helps with future policy development by learning from experience.

[Stephen Morgan]

I thank the right hon. Member for his interventions, and I ask him to be a bit more patient in the light of what I am going on to say. The Government’s impact assessment shows that we expect the number of private school closures to remain relatively low and that will be influenced by various factors, not just this VAT policy. Around 50 private schools, excluding independent special schools, close each year, and the Government estimate that 100 schools in total may close over the next three years in addition to the normal levels of turnover, after which closures will return to historical norms.

The Government also estimate that, in the long-term steady state, 35,000 pupils are expected to move from private schools to UK state schools. That represents less than 0.5% of all state school pupils and the resultant impact on the state education system, as a whole, is therefore expected to be very small. Differences in local circumstances will mean that the impact of this policy will vary between parts of the UK. The number of private school pupils who might seek state-funded places will vary by geographical location, and that will interact with other local place pressures.

In addition to the impact assessment, regular data is published by the Department for Education on pupil numbers and pupil moves. Data on the numbers of pupils in private schools is collected and published through the annual school census, and data on how many parents receive offers from their preferred schools in the normal admissions round is also collected from local authorities and published annually. We cannot definitively correlate pupil moves with the ending of the VAT exemption, as pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons.

Moreover, admissions decisions must strictly be made in accordance with a school’s published admissions criteria only. We should therefore be cautious of measures that would require parents to state the reason why they are choosing to move their children to a different school, to avoid any impression that this information may be misused. School’s published admission numbers may be raised to respond to a wider local demand; in some cases and in some areas that may include, but will not necessarily limited to, increased numbers of pupils from the private sector. Where schools wish to raise their published admission number, they should do so in co-operation and collaboration with the local authority, and with a view to what is needed in the local area. Indeed, there are other measures in the Bill that stress the importance of co-operation on this issue.

Local authorities will consider pressures following the removal of the VAT exemption on school fees alongside other pressures as part of the normal place-planning cycle—this is business as usual. The Department for Education will be monitoring place demand and capacity using our normal processes and will be working with local authorities to meet any pressures. While I am grateful to Members for their interest in the issue of removing the VAT exemption on private schools, I hope that they are reassured that the Government have already addressed the impact of this policy and continue to monitor it.

[Damian Hinds]

I have been trying to exercise my best patience as the Minister entreated me to do. I think he is saying that it will never be possible to know, in reality, what the effect of this tax change is. Is that right?

[Stephen Morgan]

I know the right hon. Member will have been listening very carefully to what I said, and I made it very clear that there is a census published each year, which sets out those figures. We will work very closely with local authorities to understand the impact that the policy has.

The hon. Member for Twickenham made a number of points on children with SEND. The vast majority of pupils who have special educational needs are educated in mainstream schools—whether they are state-maintained or private—where their needs are met. Where parents have chosen to send their child to a private school but their special educational needs could be met in the state sector—such as in England where children do not have an EHCP—VAT will apply to fees. The Government do not support the new clause for the reasons that I have outlined, and I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw it.

[Neil O'Brien]

I think it is clear from the Minister’s response that there are certain things we will not be able to find out in the absence of this new clause. We will not be able to see the numbers moving from the private sector to the state sector. In particular, as the hon. Member for Twickenham raised, we will not be able to see the critical flow of those with undiagnosed or unofficially recognised special needs, as they potentially move into the EHCP process and into state schools. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the impact of this policy over time, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 30

Publication of details of preventative care and family support

(1) Every local authority, must within six months of the passing of this Act, publish details of all preventative care and family support available to people in their area.

(2) Information published under subsection (1) must be made available—

(a) on the authority’s website, and

(b) in all public libraries in the authority’s area.”—(Munira Wilson.)

This new clause would require all local authorities to publish information about preventative care and family support and to ensure it is freely available to people living in the area.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

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

There has been an explosion of mental health issues among our children and young people. The need and waiting lists for support were already high and growing prior to the covid pandemic, and the impact of lockdowns only made that worse. The demand for services—whether they are school-led, community-led or health service-led—is rising, and those services are struggling. The NHS estimates that one in five students under the age of 16 has a probable mental health disorder, and that figure rises to an astonishing 23% of students between the ages of 17 and 19, so we need urgent action.

I note that the Labour party manifesto committed to having a mental health professional in every secondary school, and in recent months Ministers have intimated that they intend to expand existing mental health support teams established under the previous Government. The roll-out of mental health support teams is far from complete, however. I do not have the latest data as of today, but I know that it was previously projected that by the end of 2024, only about half of secondaries and a quarter of primaries would have access to a mental health support team. With half of all lifetime mental health conditions arising before the age of 14, early intervention is key.

The new clause would place a duty on school governing bodies to ensure that every maintained and academy school in England, whether primary or secondary, has a dedicated mental health practitioner on site, with collaborative provision in place for smaller schools where it would perhaps not be sensible to have a dedicated person. That may particularly be the case in small schools. These dedicated practitioners would be trained to a graduate or postgraduate level through sources commissioned by NHS England.

There is growing evidence linking mental wellbeing to academic success. Many schools are already working incredibly hard and stretching their limited resources to provide support, but too often heads and governors tell me that they desperately need to do more. With ever-tightening budgets, mental health provision in many schools is in line to be cut. The duty that we have set out in the new clause would be accompanied by funding from central Government. The Liberal Democrats propose to fund this by trebling the tax on big tech giants and social media companies, which we know are fuelling the growth in poor mental health among our young people.

Having a dedicated mental health practitioner in all schools, both primary and secondary, would ensure that students received timely and professional support. It is the right thing to do for our children and young people.

[Stephen Morgan]

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss access to mental health practitioners in schools—something this Government obviously support. We know that having the right mental health and wellbeing provision in schools is key to ensuring that children and young people can achieve and thrive, and that access to early support can address problems before they escalate.

Already, 44% of children and young people have access to an NHS-funded mental health support team in school, and we expect that to increase to around 50% by April. These teams include a new workforce of education mental health practitioners with qualifications earned through an NHS-commissioned course, as the hon. Member for Twickenham has previously referenced. However, that is still not enough, and I want to reassure the hon. Lady that outside of this Bill, the Government are committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and that progress is being made to achieve this.

The Government are clear that it would be impractical for schools to pay for and oversee NHS-trained mental health practitioners, especially when workforce recruitment, training, pay and conditions, important clinical supervision arrangements, continuous professional development and established systems for reporting and evaluating outcomes already exist within the NHS. This new clause would not add to the provision of mental health professionals, but would in practice switch the responsibility for an NHS-trained health service from the NHS to schools. Mandating this responsibility for schools would add a further unnecessary burden on them, as the health sector is better placed to make arrangements for education mental health practitioners in school.

[Munira Wilson]

The Minister said “every school”. Will he clarify on the record that he means every primary and secondary school?

[Stephen Morgan]

Yes.

[Munira Wilson]

Will he give us a timeline for that? This commitment has been made repeatedly, but we have heard nothing about when the services will be expanded.

[Stephen Morgan]

I am very happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention; she will know that the Bill delivers a range of measures that will support children’s wellbeing. The Government are obviously committed to improving mental health support specifically, which is why we introduced the Mental Health Bill last November, which delivers on our manifesto commitment to modernise mental health legislation more broadly. We are committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and we are working through that at pace, alongside the existing work of the mental health support teams.

We will also be putting in place Young Futures hubs, including access to mental health support workers, and are recruiting an additional 8,500 new mental health staff members to treat children and adults. With that in mind, and with my assurance that we will deliver on our important manifesto commitment, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.

[Munira Wilson]

I wish to press the new clause to a vote.

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

--- Later in debate ---

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

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Home education is a choice taken by parents for a number of different reasons, as we have previously heard when debating this Bill. However, just because a parent chooses to educate their child at home and not take up a local authority school place, it should not mean that their child cannot access the examination system. At present, access to examinations for home-educated children is extremely limited, as there are only commercial providers in that space, which means that it becomes very expensive for parents. Examination space is often limited, especially for those with SEND. This new clause would ensure that all children can access and sit national examinations in order to prepare for life in further education and the world of work.

In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.

[Stephen Morgan]

The new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham, seeks to create a duty for local authorities to make provision for children who are eligible to be included on the children not in school registers to sit any relevant national examination should a parent request that, and

“to provide financial assistance to enable the child to sit”

such examinations. Electing to home educate is not an easy decision, and home educating children is a massive undertaking. I applaud those parents who work tremendously hard to do so. However, parents who choose to home educate assume full responsibility for the education of their child, and our guidance is clear on that.

The choice to home educate should be an informed one, with full awareness of potential challenges and the associated costs. That includes considering and planning in advance how to access examinations and qualifications for the child, including making inquiries with local centres as early as possible. To assist with that, the Joint Council for Qualifications publishes a list of centres that are available to private candidates to take their examinations. Parents can also contact exam boards, which may be able to direct them to a centre where their child can sit exams.

The Bill introduces a duty on all English local authorities to provide support in the form of advice and information to all eligible families who request it. For the first time that creates an established baseline of support to ensure that wherever home educating families live, they have access to a reliable level of support from their local authority. Within that duty, I expect local authorities, when requested, to provide advice and information to private candidates about how to access and navigate the examination system.

Local authorities retain discretion to provide further support above that baseline to families in their local area if they choose to do so. Some may choose to contribute towards the cost of examinations for families in their area. That is a decision for each local authority, depending on its budgetary position and local need. I therefore ask the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to withdraw the new clause.

[Ian Sollom]

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 38

Consultation on the structures of governance for local authority and academy schools

“(1) The Secretary of State must conduct a public consultation on the current structures of governance within both local authority and academy schools.

(2) The consultation conducted under subsection (1) must consider—

(a) the role of school governors;

(b) the statutory duties of school governors;

(c) ways to encourage people to become school governors; and

(d) any other matters that the Secretary of State may see fit.

(3) The Secretary of State must issue the consultation conducted under subsection (1) within one year of the commencement of this Act.

(4) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the consultation closing, publish and lay before Parliament his response to the consultation.” —(Ian Sollom.)

This new clause instigates a review of school governance in light of the severe shortage of school governors and the increasing responsibilities that volunteer governors are taking on.

Brought up, and read the First time.

--- Later in debate ---

[Munira Wilson]

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

New clause 42 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme for children and young people throughout England. I set out the need and the case for mental health support provision during our debate on new clause 33, and I pay tribute to #BeeWell and Pro Bono Economics, which have done a lot of work on the national wellbeing measurement. As we heard from witnesses in oral evidence a few weeks ago, despite having the word “wellbeing” in the Bill’s title, the legislation lacks measures that will improve the wellbeing of this country’s children and young people.

England’s young people have the lowest level of wellbeing in Europe and are in the bottom 5% worldwide, according to the OECD’s programme for international student assessment survey. During our oral evidence sessions, Anne Longfield, Dr Carol Homden from Coram and Mark Russell from the Children’s Society all made the case for the systematic national measurement of children and young people’s wellbeing.

Many of us are well aware that data on children’s wellbeing and mental health is fragmented across the NHS, schools and local authorities. Indeed, in the last Parliament, I sought to introduce a private Member’s Bill to address that gap, with regular annual reporting to Parliament on mental health and wellbeing data. Sadly, it was rejected by the Conservative Government at the time and talked out.

On the other hand, and given the Minister’s already stated commitment to improving the mental health of our children and young people, I hope that the Labour Government will take the opportunity to introduce a national wellbeing measurement to focus efforts and provide a measurable standard from which we can mark progress. That would give all children and young people a voice on the issues that matter to their mental health and wellbeing, allow regular tracking of national progress, support detailed service planning within local communities, enable targeted support for groups of young people struggling the most, help school leaders to understand how they are performing and support the development of new evidence on what works for improving children’s wellbeing.

[Stephen Morgan]

New clause 42 is intended to require the establishment of a national children and young people’s wellbeing measurement programme. The Government are committed to improving the wellbeing of children and young people. Alongside improving health outcomes, we will break down barriers to opportunities, supporting all children to achieve and thrive. We know that elements of thriving, such as positive school belonging and childhood physical and mental wellbeing, are associated with academic attendance and the development of key life skills. The Bill, and our plan for change, will help us to achieve that.

We acknowledge the value of understanding wellbeing. A wide range of data on children and young people’s wellbeing is already collected nationally to inform policy development. That includes DFE and Government-funded surveys such as the Office for National Statistics data on children’s wellbeing; the DFE parent and pupil voice panel surveys and recent national behaviour survey reports; the Department of Health-funded survey of the prevalence of mental health disorders, which is currently paused; and the health behaviours of school-aged children study, which is currently seeking funding. Surveys also include the Children’s Society “Good Childhood Report” and international data from PISA.

[Damian Hinds]

There have now been four waves of updates from the children and young people’s mental ill health prevalence survey conducted by the NHS. That invaluable resource has provided annual data and enabled us to look at ourselves against other countries, although the data are not perfectly comparable. I gather that there is no current commitment to wave five. I know the Department of Health and Social Care said that it would keep an open mind, but will the Minister join me in strongly encouraging his colleagues at the Department to maintain that data series, because it is incredibly important?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will certainly take away that point. I know that the right hon. Member cares passionately about the wellbeing of children and young people, and I am happy to explore that further.

We know that many good schools and local areas already measure pupil wellbeing to inform local action. The Department encourages that, with identifying need and monitoring impact being one principle of an effective whole-school approach to mental health and wellbeing. Although we do not currently have plans to introduce a standardised national wellbeing measurement programme, we continue to engage with schools to increase the understanding of wellbeing measurement approaches and impact.

It is not clear that the benefits of a national programme would outweigh the burdens on schools, or the reduction in their ability to select tools to suit their cohorts. We would also need to consider the potential effect of a national measure on school accountability. Should the case for a national measure be made, there is likely to be scope to introduce the kind of voluntary participation programme envisaged in the new clause without recourse to primary legislation. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Twickenham to withdraw the new clause.

[Munira Wilson]

I wish to press the new clause.

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

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine Atkinson]

Call me a lawyer—that increasingly seems to be a term of abuse in this place—but I want to be clear that voting for this new clause would be voting to enable the banning of adults, including staff, parents and visitors, from using and carrying mobile phones in schools. I thought that scrutinising line by line was literally our job in this Committee.

[Stephen Morgan]

New clause 48 would prohibit the use and carrying of certain devices during the school day. I thank the shadow Minister and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East, for Portsmouth North and for Derby North for their contributions, as well as the hon. Member for Twickenham and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which Members have contributed to the debate on the new clause.

We recognise the negative impact that mobile phones can have on children’s learning. Every pupil deserves to learn in a safe, calm classroom, and we will always support our hard-working and dedicated teachers to make that happen. That is why the Government’s “Mobile phones in schools” guidance is already clear that schools should prohibit the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, break times and lunch time. It is for school leaders to develop and implement a policy, while ensuring that they adhere to the public sector equality duty and the Equality Act 2010.

New clause 48 lacks the flexibility required to accommodate some individual needs, such as a mobile phone as an adaptation for a disabled child. We know that schools are already prohibiting the use of mobile phones, including through outright bans. Even before guidance was published, around 97% of all schools in England had policies restricting mobile phone use in some way. There are a range of ways in which a mobile phone-free school can be achieved. We trust headteachers to develop a mobile phone policy that works for their own schools and for the school community.

--- Later in debate ---

[Ellie Chowns]

New clause 70 concerns anti-bullying work in schools. Bullying is a serious and a widespread problem. Each year, one in five children report being bullied. It has devastating effects on children’s mental health, their sense of belonging and their ability to thrive. It is a leading cause of school refusal, failure to attend school and disruptive behaviour.

Children who are afraid to attend school miss opportunities to learn and grow. Bullying creates long-term harm. Victims of bullying often suffer lasting consequences into adulthood, including poor mental health, unemployment and a lack of qualifications. People who are bullied may also struggle with relationships and lack life chances. Bullying has unequal effects; it affects different groups unequally. Some groups are significantly more at risk, including children with special educational needs and disabilities, those living in poverty and young carers. Bullying also costs the economy an estimated £11 billion annually due to its impact on education, health and productivity, so it is a serious problem.

The new clause would require the appointment of anti-bullying leads in schools. Evidence shows that a whole-school approach is the most effective way to tackle bullying, but that requires co-ordination by a senior staff member. Appointing an anti-bullying lead potentially alongside and within existing roles such in safeguarding or pastoral support ensures a focused and effective strategy. It is important to record bullying. Systematically recording incidents helps schools to identify patterns, implement interventions and measure progress. This duty, which is already in place in Northern Ireland, can be streamlined with digital tools. Transparent reporting fosters trust, supports accountability and creates safer and more inclusive schools without burdening staff.

It is also important to look at teacher training. Currently, there is no requirement for trainee teachers to receive anti-bullying training, and nearly half—42%—of teachers report feeling ill equipped to address bullying. The new clause will require schools to outline what anti-bullying training is provided to staff. Short, targeted training equips teachers to prevent and respond to bullying effectively, creating safer schools and improving wellbeing and learning outcomes for all pupils.

This matters because of the effects that I talked about on children and young people. We hear heartbreaking stories all the time. The Anti-Bullying Alliance collects testimonies from children and young people. One young person said,

“All the way through year 10 and 11, I ate my lunch in the toilet.”

Another child said that it “scars you for life.” Bullying has devastating effects, but it is not inevitable. With the right systems and the right leadership in place, we can make a difference and make schools safe for everyone. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to this new clause.

[Stephen Morgan]

New clause 49 sets out a requirement to publish an annual report on the behaviour of pupils in mainstream state-funded schools, and I will explain why the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston should withdraw it. The Department for Education already publishes the data from the NBS—the National Behaviour Survey—in an annual report. That is publicly available on the gov.uk website.

[Neil O’Brien]

This is a very positive moment. Will the Minister commit to continuing that survey, which is, as he says, so important?

[Stephen Morgan]

I will certainly take that point away.

The NBS reports provide an accurate, timely and authoritative picture of behaviour across England. The surveys allow us to build up a national picture over time, and act as a signpost to what schools need. By triangulating the views of professionals, children and parents, Government officials can gain better understanding of behaviour and of what is needed to support teachers and school leaders in practice. My Department will continue to use data from the NBS to inform future strategy and policy improvements on behaviour in schools.

Mr Betts, you will be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause that I expect to respond to. I conclude by thanking you and all the Chairs for expertly chairing the Committee; all Clerks and civil servants who have supported the smooth running of our proceedings; and all Committee members who have contributed so diligently to this landmark legislation. As a Government, we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for every child in every part of the country. This Bill is one step further in our plan for change for children and families.

New clause 49 creates a redundancy and we do not believe it is necessary to legislate on this issue. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw the clause.