Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Public Bill Committee, 11 February 2025.

New Clause 5 - Provision of free meals and activities during school holidays

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

New clause 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), is a probing new clause, and I sincerely hope it will generate debate and action. Its purpose is to make the holiday activities and food programme statutory provision. Following Marcus Rashford’s high-profile campaign, the HAF programme was rolled out across England to provide children with nutritious food, childcare and activities in the holidays. One of its aims is to ensure children receive healthy and nutritious meals during the school holidays.

Nutrition is a key concern. Recent reports show an increase in hospital admissions for nutrient deficiencies, and that data should really ring alarm bells. The longevity of the cost of living crisis—it has been with us for years now—means that food insecurity has become the norm for many families, who are unable to buy staple nutritious products. Stark health inequalities are highly prevalent, particularly when it comes to diet-related poor health. The most deprived communities are affected disproportionately by much higher rates of food-related ill health and disease, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dental decay.

No doubt the Committee will be concerned by the food insecurity statistics collated by the Food Foundation, which show that 14% of UK households experience food insecurity, but inequalities mean that the number is much higher for certain groups. Among households with children, it is 18%. Among single-adult households with children, it is 31%. Among households of a non-white ethnicity, it is 26%—double the rate for white households. It is 32% for households with an adult limited a lot by disability, but 10% for households with non-disabled adults. Food insecurity and health inequalities go hand in hand.

In that already difficult context, school holidays are a known pressure point for families, which face extra food and childcare costs, and can have reduced incomes due to time of work to care for children. Evaluation of the HAF programme shows multiple benefits to families. In a qualitative review of HAF programme holiday clubs in Yorkshire, parents reported that children were eating more healthily and experiencing a wider variety of foods during those holiday programmes. Analysis of meals in five clubs in areas of high deprivation found that children eligible for free school meals who attended a club had better quality diets on days that they attended the club than on days that they did not attend.

HAF clubs provide free childcare to working families and help to reduce the costs associated with the loss of free school meals, which are significant for families in the holidays. Of course, they help to reduce learning loss over the summer holidays by providing enriching activities and physical activity for children.

But HAF funding is currently committed on a short-term basis. Although the current funding has just been extended for a year, short-term extensions periodically leave local authorities unable to plan provision in the long term. As a former councillor, I have seen for myself that a hand-to-mouth approach to funding creates uncertainty for club providers and leaves children at risk of holiday hunger if funding is not renewed. That is why the holiday activities and food programme must be secured and put on a statutory footing, alongside other crucial parts of the nutritional safety net such as free school meals and the Healthy Start scheme. I sincerely urge the Government to take this important step. Although this is a probing new clause, I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.

Stephen Morgan (Labour, Portsmouth South)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I turn to new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), on the topic of providing healthy meals and activities to children in receipt of free school meals during school holidays. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for speaking to the new clause. She makes an important point about how local authorities provide support to children who receive a free school meal during term time and during school holidays, and we fully support local authorities in continuing to provide this support through the existing holiday activities and food programme.

The highly regarded HAF programme is established in every local authority across England and is already delivering vital support to children and families across the country during school holidays. The programme’s grant conditions already place an obligation on local authorities to make free holiday club places available to children in their area who receive benefits-related free school meals, and to provide meals that meet our school foods standards and to deliver physical activities in line with the chief medical officer’s guidance. Our non-statutory programme guidance provides comprehensive support to local authorities and holiday clubs on how they might best provide this support.

However, HAF does not provide only meals and activities; it goes much further. HAF clubs work with children to teach them about the importance of healthy eating and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Children and their families can learn how to cook nutritious and tasty low-cost meals, and clubs can act as a referral point for families to get information, help and access to other services and support when they need it. Our programme does not support just children who receive free school meals. We provide local authorities with the flexibility to use up to 15% of their total HAF budget to work with other children and families who they deem to be vulnerable or at risk, which might include looked-after children with an education, health and care plan, or children who are at risk of exploitation and need somewhere safe during the school holidays.

Flexibility has been key to delivering the HAF programme in thousands of holiday clubs across the country. Placing a legal duty on local authorities to deliver food and activities to free school meal recipients would risk stifling the innovation that local authorities have to deliver HAF in a way that is right for their communities, and to allow them to develop and evolve year to year, whether that is through working with schools to target children with low school attendance rates or working with police and community organisations to support children at risk of involvement in gang violence.

Since they began delivering this programme in 2021, local authorities have built partnerships with organisations across the community and we have seen some wonderful examples of collaboration. One of our 2023 regional champions, based not far from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, was the Venture Community Hub in Gloucestershire, which was recognised for the work that it did with schools, businesses and charitable organisations. The local authority was instrumental in supporting it to build, adapt and develop a HAF programme that met the needs of the diverse community around it.

I am delighted to confirm that this great programme will be continuing for 2025-26, backed by funding of more than £200 million. Future funding for the programme will be determined by the spending review. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for highlighting this important issue and we look forward to carrying on our work with local authorities across the country to continue to provide vital support for children and families during the school holidays. I therefore recommend that the Committee does not press the new clause to a vote.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 8 - Identification of children eligible for free school meals

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

New clause 8 is another important probing amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud, that places a duty on the Secretary of State to proactively identify all children eligible for free school meals in England, making the application process for free school meals opt out, rather than opt in. I note that the Minister, in his comments on new clause 5, mentioned that making things statutory made it terribly restrictive. On that basis, why would one ever make anything statutory?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

School uniform guidance?

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

This new clause seeks to address the very real problem that up to 250,000 children, or approximately 11% of those eligible for free school meals, even under the currently very restrictive eligibility criteria, miss out on them because it is an opt-in process. It is simply not okay that so many eligible children are missing out on free school meals. That is in addition to the roughly 900,000 children who are living in poverty, but still not qualifying for free school meals because the eligibility criteria are so tight. I believe that we may be coming on to discuss that a little later.

Early findings from areas with which the Fix Our Food research programme are working show that children from non-white communities, or lone-parent households, are more likely to not be registered for free school meals despite being eligible. Again, inequalities are reproducing themselves when it comes to people accessing their statutory rights. Charities working to address this totally unacceptable situation point to several reasons for the under-registration rate: parents may struggle to fill out complex forms; there may be language barriers for parents; there may be a lack of awareness of free school eligibility; and there may be stigma or embarrassment. The current system is regularly described by schools and local authorities as “cumbersome” and “financially and administratively inefficient”. Receiving statutory benefits should be easy and straightforward for people who are eligible.

There are obvious benefits to the child from getting a nutritious, filling lunch, which we have discussed already today and also on our last sitting day, including reduced food insecurity, improved nutrition and health, and increased attainment and lifetime earning potential, as I set out when I spoke to new clause 2. There are also important wider benefits to the child. Struggling families also miss out on other benefits that free school meal registration would give them access to, including the holiday activities and food programme and uniform grants.

There are also benefits to schools. If children are not registered for free school meals, schools miss out on much-needed pupil premium funding, worth £1,455 per pupil. There are also benefits to local authorities. The Fix Our Food research programme is supporting 66 local authorities to implement an opt-out, or right-to-object approach to free school meal registration. It is identifying and writing to families using existing datasets to inform them that their children will be automatically registered unless they opt out.

As I understand it, in many cases, this has resulted in children, who were previously missing out, becoming successfully registered, and opt-out rates are extremely low. However, only a few councils have successfully adopted this new process. In some cases, despite local authorities’ efforts, data sharing barriers have not been possible to overcome. Some have even been threatened with legal action. The local work still does not capture all eligible children, with families falling through the gaps, as access to datasets is patchy. Further, my understanding is that this process is resource-intensive. Again, it is administratively intensive, incurring onerous governance and administration at council and school level.

Meanwhile, the Greater London Authority has put resource into auto-enrolment. Although that is positive for children in London, the same level of support is not available for most children in the rest of England.

Free school meal auto-enrolment would register eligible families to receive free school meals using benefits data, unless families decide to opt out. This requires data sharing between the Department for Work and Pensions, which holds the data that identifies which children should be eligible for these schemes, and the Department for Education, which administers the scheme. I really hope that, as part of this important Bill,the Government will seriously consider how they can introduce auto-enrolment for free school meals to ensure that all those who are eligible are in receipt of their entitlement. This is a fantastic opportunity to do so now.

As a statutory scheme, funding for the meals for these children should already be available. There is just an administrative barrier that stops far too many children getting what they are entitled to. In the meantime, until this is established, I hope the Government will instigate collaborative working across local government so that we can agree to make progress on this issue.

In conclusion, I want to underscore the fact that we should see this as a first step towards expanding eligibility for free school meals to more children to ensure that no child misses out on a nutritious hot meal at school every day.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Christopher, on our final day in Committee. I rise to speak to new clauses 31 and 67 on free school meals. New clause 67 largely mirrors the provisions of new clause 8, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has just spoken to. I will address the issue of auto-enrolment in a moment.

New clause 31 seeks to expand the eligibility threshold for free school meals to children from households earning less than £20,000 per year, ensuring that no child living in poverty goes hungry at school. The Child Poverty Action Group currently estimates that some 900,000 children living in poverty are missing out on a free school meal, because free school meal eligibility in England is linked to specific benefits, with a household income threshold of just £7,400 per year, after tax, excluding benefits. That leaves many struggling families without support.

The threshold was last uprated in 2018. We know the huge cost of living crisis that households have had to deal with since then. For those on low incomes, that has often meant the difference between heating and eating, and children turning up to school with empty lunchboxes. I saw a mother at my surgery last year who was having to skip her mental health medication to use the prescription money she saved to pay for lunch for her daughter, who is now at college.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

The hon. Member makes an absolutely excellent point, not just about the excruciatingly low threshold for eligibility of free school meals, but about the fact that these thresholds, when set in law, get stuck at the numbers. Does she agree that thresholds should be set at, for example, a percentage of average household income, or a similar threshold that moves over time, so that we do not end up with children’s eligibility being squeezed and squeezed year on year as incomes rise but the threshold does not?

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I certainly agree that there should be a principle in law that thresholds are uprated, by whatever mechanism or measure, because, as we have seen, the threshold has not moved since 2018 and more and more children in poverty are being left without a hot meal at lunchtime.

The threshold is far too low. Both the previous Government’s adviser on food strategy, Henry Dimbleby, and the former Conservative Education Secretary, Michael Gove, have said the threshold should rise, ideally to all those households in receipt of universal credit, but with the public finances so constrained, at the very least to £20,000.

Last week, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, when speaking to the new clause about universal provision of free school meals to all primary children, set out the moral and economic case for expanding free school meal provision. I will not rehearse all those arguments again, but I say to her and other hon. Members that hunger does not end at the age of 11. Every primary and secondary school child living in poverty should be able to access a hot, healthy meal at lunchtime.

All the evidence points to better concentration, better behaviour and better academic results for those children. While I would love to extend universal free school meals to all children in primary schools—that has long been a Liberal Democrat ambition and policy after we extended it in government to all infant children—we heard from a number of witnesses during the oral evidence sessions that resources would be better targeted at those most in need both at primary and secondary school.

New clause 67 mirrors new clause 8 to a large extent. Frankly, auto-enrolment for free school meals should be a no-brainer for Government. As we have heard, too many are missing out at the moment due to administrative barriers and an unwillingness to apply. These new clauses seek to ensure that no eligible child is left behind.

The exact number of how many children are missing out is unknown. In a recent response to a parliamentary question I tabled, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Portsmouth South, admitted that the Department for Education had not made an estimate of how many children were missing out on free school meals since 2013, although estimates suggest that about 11% of children are missing out.

As we have heard, the new clauses seek to ensure that DWP data is shared with the Department for Education, so that families in receipt of certain benefits who meet the eligibility criteria for free school meals are automatically enrolled, with their children being provided with a meal at lunchtime and the school benefiting from the accompanying pupil premium. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire mentioned that a number of councils are already doing that up and down the country. I am delighted that Liberal Democrat-led Durham county council started auto-enrolment this year. Only 15 families opted out. Some 2,500 additional children are now benefiting from a hot meal at lunchtime, with schools across the local authority benefiting from an additional £3 million in pupil premium funding to support the education of those disadvantaged children.

If the Labour party is serious about spreading opportunity, auto-enrolment is an absolutely necessary first step. Expanding free school meals and driving their take-up is an investment in the future of our children and our country, improving educational outcomes and reducing health disparities.

Stephen Morgan (Labour, Portsmouth South)

Clause 31 is about the important issue of increasing the earnings threshold when it comes to families who receive free school meals. The Government have a central mission to break down barriers to opportunity for every child, which is why we would roll out a free breakfast club in every state-funded primary school so that children can start the day ready to learn. The continued provision of free school meals to disadvantaged pupils plays a crucial role in this mission, as well as in tackling child poverty.

The Government’s free school meal programme is more important than ever because we have inherited a trend of rising child poverty and a widening attainment gap between children eligible for free school meals and their peers. Child poverty has increased by 700,000 since 2010, with over 4 million children now growing up in a low-income family. Of course, that is the legacy of the previous Government, which the hon. Member for Twickenham has described as shameful. That is why we have committed to delivering a strategy to reduce child poverty through the new Child Poverty Taskforce. The taskforce will consider a range of policies, including free school meals, to assess what will have the biggest impact on driving down rates of child poverty.

I want to reassure the hon. Member for Twickenham about the reach of current programmes, under which 2.1 million disadvantaged children, accounting for 24.6% of all pupils in state-funded schools, are already eligible to receive benefits-based free school meals. A further 90,000 16 to 18-year-old students in further education are entitled to receive free school meals on the basis of low income. In addition, all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 in state-funded schools in England are entitled to universal infant free school meals, which benefits around 1.3 million children, ensuring that they receive a nutritious lunchtime meal.

The meals provide much-needed nutrition for pupils and can boost school attendance, improve behaviour and set children up for success by ensuring that they can concentrate and learn in the classroom, and get the most out of their education. In total, we already spend over £1.5 billion on delivering these programmes, and eligibility for benefits-based free school meals provides for the allocation of billions of additional pounds of funding for disadvantaged children.

We appreciate the continued engagement by the hon. Member for Twickenham with the issue of expanding the provision of free school meals to more pupils. We also recognise how important the issue is and want to ensure that free school meals are being delivered to the families who need them most. However, given the funding involved, this matter must be considered through the Child Poverty Taskforce and the multi-year spending review. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press the amendment.

I turn to new clauses 8 and 67, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud and the hon. Member for Twickenham respectively; of course, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire also spoke passionately to them earlier. The new clauses call for a system to be introduced that would increase registration for free school meals among families who meet the eligibility criteria for them, but are not currently claiming the entitlement.

At their core, we consider that the aim of these measures is to ensure that those who need it receive the support they are entitled to—a goal that we all support. We currently facilitate the process of claiming free school meals through provision of the eligibility checking system. That is a digital portal available to local authorities that makes verification of eligibility for free lunches quick and simple. That checking system is being redesigned to allow parents and schools to check eligibility independently of their local authorities. The system will make it quicker and easier to check eligibility for free school meals, and has the potential to further boost take-up by families who meet the eligibility criteria.

Further to that, we are aware of a range of measures being implemented by local authorities to boost the take-up of free lunches, as we heard earlier. Locally led efforts are more likely to meet the particular needs of the community, and we welcome local authorities taking action to ensure that families access the support for which they are eligible, subject to those activities meeting legal requirements, including those on data protection. In order to support those local efforts, 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 criteria for free lunches but are not claiming them. We are also considering further work to improve auto-enrolment. Improved enrolment for meals is needed in the context of the spending review and through the work of the child poverty taskforce. I thank hon. Members for their continued engagement on this policy, but I ask that new clauses 8 and 67 be withdrawn while we continue to keep free meals under review.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I will press both new clauses 31 and 67 to a vote later.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 9 - Requirement to provide information about bereavement services

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

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

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 52— Bereavement policy in schools—

“(1) The governing body of a relevant school in England has a duty to develop and publish a bereavement policy.

(2) A policy developed under this section must include—

(a) a process for supporting a pupil or staff member facing or following bereavement;

(b) details of how the school will incorporate opportunities to learn about death and bereavement as part of life in its taught curriculum;

(c) details of partnership arrangements with child bereavement services; and

(d) arrangements for staff training.

(3) In developing a policy under this section, the governing body of the school must consult with bereaved pupils and their parents or carers.

(4) The Secretary of State must provide, or make arrangements for the provision of, appropriate financial and other support to school governing bodies for their purposes of facilitating the fulfilling of the duty in this section.

(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.”

This new clause would require schools to develop and publish a bereavement policy.

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am moving this new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). According to the Childhood Bereavement Network, around one in 29 school-aged children—about one per classroom—has been bereaved of a parent or sibling. Many more will lose grandparents, and sadly some will have lost their friends. Each year, data is collected on the number of adults bereaved of their husband, wife or child, and until recently data was collected on the number of children affected by the divorce of their parents. However, no similar data is collected on the number who face the devastating loss of their mum or dad or someone else really important in their life.

All that means that when a child is bereaved, there is no obvious way of letting them know what support is available to them, despite a diverse range of services offered by organisations across the country, including Winston’s Wish, Child Bereavement UK and the Childhood Bereavement Network, which all offer online and group sessions with trained professionals and peer-to-peer services for young people to share their experience with each other. Those services are really important in engaging those young people going through quite a diverse range of circumstances, many of which will need quite bespoke support, whether that is specifically around children with disabilities or additional needs, children who might be in a rural community where they are more isolated, or simply the difference between losing someone suddenly versus through a long-term illness.

We know that schools do very good work in supporting vulnerable young people through bereavement, but it is not consistent in every school. Many young people will need help at times when school is not available, such as in the holidays and in the evenings, and they may just feel embarrassed about asking people at school. New clause 9 would finally put in a simple protocol to ensure that every child who is bereaved knows that support is out there if they would like to access it. This is a relatively low-cost, low-effort task that would help those charities to connect with grieving families and young people and provide that support to children to help them to process those difficult, traumatic experiences and, in turn, try to prevent the long-term negative impacts that can arise from bereavement.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I rise to speak to new clause 52 on bereavement policy in schools, which is closely related to new clause 9.

The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has already alluded to the fact that no official data is collected on the number of children and young people who are bereaved of someone important in their lives. In the absence of annual statistics, the Childhood Bereavement Network has estimated that over 46,000 children and young people are bereaved of a parent each year in the UK. That is a huge number—around 127 each day. Data from representative samples suggest that about one in 29 children and young people in school today—roughly one per classroom—has been bereaved of a parent or sibling at some point in their childhood. Some 70% of primary schools have at least one recently bereaved pupil on roll. That means that all schools are likely to be touched by bereavement, and those ripples of grief can be felt across the whole school community.

When somebody in the family is terminally ill or has died, just getting to school, concentrating, getting on with peers and managing emotions can be hugely challenging, and can have major consequences for attendance and achievement in the long term. Parentally bereaved young people’s GCSE scores are an average of half a grade lower than their non-bereaved peers; in one study, girls bereaved of a sibling scored almost a full grade below their matched controls. Bereavement also has long-term effects further in life. The death of a parent by age 16 is associated with women failing to gain any sort of qualification, and both men and women being unemployed at the age of 30.

Schools clearly have a huge role to play in supporting children facing such tragic circumstances. Two years ago, the independent UK Commission on Bereavement surveyed children, young people and adults about their experiences of bereavement. It found some examples of fantastic practice and support in schools, but it was far from universal. Just under half of the bereaved children, young people and adults who shared their experiences said that they got little or no support from their education setting after their bereavement. That is such a tragic missed opportunity.

Many children and young people shared the loneliness, isolation, and lack of acknowledgment and support that they had faced. For example, a young teenager said:

“I knew my teachers all knew, but no-one spoke to me about the fact they knew, so it felt like an unspoken secret.”

A primary-aged child said:

“I felt like I was the only one whose daddy had died.”

Another teenager said:

“Everyone sees it as me just misbehaving. Maybe if teachers and any other adults involved were trained to see the signs I wouldn’t of been left for the last 18 months with no support.”

These young people are crying out for support from their schools and from us.

To address the challenges, the commission recommended that all education establishments should be required to have a bereavement policy, including staff training and a process for supporting bereaved children and their families. In line with wider evidence from parents, teachers, and children and young people themselves supporting the inclusion of grief education in the curriculum, the commission also recommended that students should have opportunities to learn about coping with grief as a life skill.

New clause 52 would directly address the inconsistencies in support that grieving children and young people face, and it would help schools to get on the front foot. At the moment, they often reach out for support in crisis mode when a pupil is facing bereavement or has been recently bereaved. They make contact with local child bereavement services, scrambling for guidance on how to respond, how to tell the rest of the school community, and how to make a plan to support grieving pupils coming back to school. All too often, they wish they had done that work in advance of the crisis. The new clause would help schools to be wise before the event, to respond calmly and consistently, and to help children and young people stay on course as they navigate this most challenging of events in their life.

I have tabled this as a probing amendment; I am interested to hear the Minister’s response. I hope that the Government will consider taking this opportunity to write into legislation the requirement for schools to provide support, consistently across the country, to the children and young people who desperately need it, to ensure that bereavement is addressed by every school to improve the life chances of children facing these most difficult circumstances.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I thank the hon. Members for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and for North Herefordshire for raising those important issues. Bereavement touches the lives of everyone, and it has a unique impact on each person. It is particularly important that children and young people who lose someone close to them are able to access support when they need it.

New clause 9 seeks to improve access to bereavement support services for children. It seeks to establish a duty to make regulations to establish a protocol to provide information on those services. The Government continue to consider how to improve access to existing support. The cross-Government bereavement group, chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care and attended by representatives from the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, continues to look at how we can improve access to support and options to improve data collection. There are many fantastic charities and community groups—the Childhood Bereavement Network, Hope Again, the Anna Freud centre and the Ruth Strauss Foundation, to name just four—that provide vital support, and schools and other public bodies perform vital roles in supporting bereaved children and families. A legislative solution would therefore not be the most appropriate way to ensure bereaved children and young people access the support they need.

On new clause 52 and the matter of requiring schools to publish a bereavement policy, including the approach to grief education, we know that teachers and other school staff do an excellent job in understanding the specific needs of their pupils and identifying what support is needed for a range of life experiences, including bereavement. To support them in that, the Department for Education provides a list of resources for schools on supporting pupils’ mental health and wellbeing. That includes resources from charities and organisations, including those I just mentioned, and resources hosted on the Mentally Healthy Schools site for mental health needs, which includes supporting children dealing with loss and bereavement.

On the curriculum, following the consultation that ended in July last year, we are currently reviewing the relationships, sex and health education statutory guidance, which sets out the content of what children and young people are taught about these subjects. It is also clear in the current RSHE statutory guidance that teachers should be aware of common adverse childhood experiences, including bereavement. We want to ensure that children’s wellbeing is at the heart of the guidance, and we are looking carefully at the consultation responses, considering the relevant evidence and talking to stakeholders before setting out next steps to take the RSHE guidance forward. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt our response to the consultation, nor the publication of the RSHE curriculum guidance. I hope the hon. Member for North Herefordshire is reassured that we will consider that as part of our work on RSHE. We will continue to provide support from the Department and right across Government to help schools support children and young people who experience bereavement and other significant adverse experiences in their childhood.

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 11 - Benefits of outdoor education to children’s wellbeing

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

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

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 12—Provision of residential outdoor education for children in kinship care—

“(1) A local authority must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that children living in kinship care receive at least one residential outdoor education experience.

(2) For the purposes of this section, children living in kinship care has the meaning provided for by section 22I of the Children Act 1989 (as amended by this Act

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

I am moving the new clauses on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Many hon. Members will know that he has long been a champion of the benefits of outdoor education. Academic research has shown that greater exposure to natural environments improves learning behaviour and emotional health. Studies have found measurable academic and wellbeing benefits from nature-specific outdoor learning. Even a single outdoor educational experience reduces anxiety, builds resilience and improves focus in the long term, especially for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or anxiety disorders.

We know that children’s wellbeing is suffering. Children are experiencing rising mental health concerns, reduced physical activity and limited access to nature, so there is a real need to support their wellbeing. Outdoor education is proven to improve physical, emotional and social health.

New clause 11 would require the Government to review the impact of outdoor education on children’s wellbeing, with the aim of providing a foundation to embed outdoor education into the curriculum. New clause 12 considers children in kinship care, or those with kinship care experience, and would give them at least one residential outdoor education opportunity and ensure that they are not left behind in accessing those benefits. We would like to hear from the Government about these new clauses.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his campaign to promote the positive effects of outdoor learning on young people. He clearly has the advantage of living in and representing one of the most beautiful parts of the world.

We believe that all children and young people should have the opportunity to learn about and connect with nature. Access to green space has been shown to have positive impacts on the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of young people. The national education nature park provides opportunities for children and young people to benefit from spending time in nature, as well as to take positive climate action and to drive solutions to address the growing concerns about climate change and biodiversity loss. The nature park is a key initiative of the Department for Education’s sustainability and climate change strategy, which was launched in 2022.

In the light of progress in the past three years, we are now beginning a process of refreshing and updating the strategic vision for sustainability in the education sector. We are also working with the University of Oxford on research intended to assess the evidence of the impact of nature-based programmes, delivered through schools, on the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people. Once those results are published, I will be happy to share them with the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.

The Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, and to giving them access to a variety of enrichment opportunities at school. Those are both important parts of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity, helping pupils to achieve and thrive in education.

There is no statutory requirement to offer extracurricular activities, but the majority of schools do because those activities complement a rich and broad curriculum. Schools include a wide range of activities, such as enabling students to take part in the Duke of Edinburgh’s award scheme, supporting them to access local youth services, and building in trips to outdoor education settings. It is right that schools should be free to decide what activities to offer their pupils so as to best support their development, to help them work with others as part of a team, and to support positive wellbeing.

The Department for Culture, Media and Sport’s adventures away from home fund provides bursaries for disadvantaged or vulnerable young people to participate in day trips and residentials to outdoor spaces. There are bursaries available for young people aged 11 to 18—or up to 25 for those with special educational needs and disabilities—who face significant barriers to participation and are under-represented in the sector. We are also extending local authority statutory duties to include promoting the educational achievement of all children living in kinship care, within the meaning of the proposed new section 22I(1) of the Children Act 1989, which will be inserted by the Bill. We will also extend virtual school heads’ duty to provide information and advice to include all children living with a special guardian or a child arrangement order, where the child is living with a kinship carer, within the meaning of proposed new section 22I(6).

On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to withdraw new clause 11 and not to press new clause 12 to a vote.

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 13 - Foster carers’ delegated authority for children in their care

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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

I am pleased to speak to new clause 13, which proposes that the Bill should provide a default delegated authority for foster carers to make day-to-day decisions for the children and young people in their care, which I think is quite straightforward.

Foster carers should have delegated authority to make these everyday decisions for children in their care—for example, about day-to-day activities such as school trips, holidays and sleepovers; about important appointments for their health and wellbeing or medical appointments; or indeed about haircuts, which is an issue that has been raised regularly by young people in care and their foster carers.

The guidance around delegated authority has not been strengthened since 2013. As a result, practice varies across fostering services, and foster carers are often unclear about which decisions they can take and which decisions they have to get permission for from elsewhere. Many foster carers report experiencing a lack of communication, clarity and information from social workers, with unnecessary paperwork and box ticking, and complicated processes.

In the Fostering Network’s 2024 state of the nations survey, less than a third of foster carers said children’s social workers are always clear about which decisions they have the authority to make in relation to the children they foster. That lack of clarity is clearly a huge issue for a large majority of foster carers. Only half of foster carers said that social workers are able to respond to requests for decisions in a timely manner; we all know social workers are under huge pressure. Foster carers reported that the most difficult decisions to make were around social opportunities, followed by healthcare, relationships and childhood experiences.

This new clause would set out in legislation that foster carers have default delegated authority on key everyday decisions where the child’s placement plan does not specify an alternative decision maker—and the placement plan can always specify that alternative. That default delegated authority would include decisions in day-to-day parenting, such as healthcare and leisure activities, and it would exclude routine but longer-term decisions such as school choice and significant events, such as surgery. It would provide more clarity, speed up decision making within foster families and for social workers, and provide foster carers with the confidence and autonomy that they need to make day-to-day decisions for the children who are in their care.

I urge the Government to take on board these points, and the content of this new clause, to make it easier for foster carers to make those decisions for children who, after all, they know best as they are caring for them. The new clause would ensure that children and young people do not miss out on the opportunities that they need to live a happy and healthy childhood.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern for foster carers having delegated authority on day-to-day decisions for the children in their care. Foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most.

All foster carers should have delegated authority in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care, such as routine decisions about health, hygiene, education and leisure activities, and where that is not appropriate, the child’s placement plan should set out reasons for that. That is so that the foster carers can support the child in having a normal upbringing, full of the experiences and opportunities that any other child would have. For all decisions relating to the foster child, the foster carer has delegated authority only if it is recorded in the child’s placement plan. That means that if something is not listed on the placement plan, the foster carer does not have that delegated authority and they have to check with their social worker before any decision can be made.

Foster carers can take decisions in relation to the child in their care only in line with the child’s agreed placement plan and the law governing parental responsibility. New clause 13 would mean that foster carers would, by default, have delegated authority on day-to-day issues, except where an alternative decision maker is listed on the child’s placement plan.

The change outlined in the new clause does not require a change to primary legislation. Delegated authority is outlined in secondary legislation in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. We have begun conversations with foster carers and foster care providers about a proposed change, ensuring that all foster carers have delegated authority by default in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care. We believe that reform to this policy area would benefit from a period of consultation with stakeholders to ensure that any change to delegated authority best reflects the interests of all parties.

Following consultation, we are committed to implementing the necessary amendments to secondary legislation. I hope that in the light of that, the hon. Member will feel able to withdraw the clause.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 15 - National statutory inquiry into grooming gangs

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

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

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

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

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

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

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Again, you are talking about victims—

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I am not the Chair.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

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

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

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

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. Please do not use the “you” word.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I appreciate that. I will return to the important topic at hand.

The Minister will comment explicitly on what the hon. Member said but I will say that, although I agree that the Government can do more than one thing, a significant amount of time and money would be invested on a second inquiry. I would want that money to be funnelled directly into the support of survivors and victims, who for so many years under a Conservative Government were denied the funding that they require to receive the support that they need in response to some of the worst experiences that a human being can go through.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

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

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

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. [Interruption.] Sit down, please. The hon. Gentleman is now quite an experienced Member at speaking, but why does he keep using “you” and “your”? Just avoid those expressions, because I am not involved in this debate. I am trying to be neutral. Mr O’Brien may wish to respond to your points, but please try to control yourself in that respect.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Thank you, Sir Christopher.

I have made my point about whether the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has used his time here to press the case on behalf of survivors and victims. I have made the point about whether he has chosen to sit with survivors and victims and listen to their stories before calling for another national inquiry that discards the views that have been given by survivors.

I have talked about the importance of the money that could be spent on a second inquiry being better spent on the support that victims and survivors so desperately need. I really wish that the Conservative party, which did so little in government to implement the recommendations that were called for by survivors, would put down the politics of this issue and stop focusing on a desperate pursuit of Reform voters, rather than the other voters they lost to the Liberal Democrats and Greens.

Lizzi Collinge (Labour, Morecambe and Lunesdale)

Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement that, given that the independent national inquiry covered so many types of child sexual exploitation—so many horrors that have been visited upon our young people—only one aspect of it has become the focus of political debate? We should focus on all the children and young people who have been violated, abused and hurt, mostly by men, but they seem to be forgotten even though the national inquiry covered a whole range of child sexual exploitation.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I could not agree more, and my hon. Friend helps me make a point that I had forgotten. You urged me to exercise control, Sir Christopher, but as you and other Members can see, I feel deeply about this topic. I feel very strongly about the importance of standing alongside survivors, and I am prepared to work with anybody in this House, of any party or none, to enhance the support that survivors receive. But having sat with survivors, I am not prepared to allow people to play politics with their experience, and for those individuals then to feign disappointment, hurt and abuse. This is not about how Members of this House feel about the honesty and truth of the words I am speaking; it is about the importance of survivors out in our communities, who have been let down for 14 years, who have suffered exploitative, abusive practices, and who will be looking to this House today to do the right thing by them. I call on the Conservatives in this Committee and across the House to do the right thing, stop playing politics, actually read the report if they have not done so already, and as a consequence show some dignity.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

Shortly after Christmas, a person came to see me who had given evidence to the IICSA inquiry and who was deeply upset by their perception that their experience, and the experience of others like them, was being used as a political football. They were outraged to find that the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry had not yet been implemented. In this room, my role is to represent them. Their call is not for another public inquiry but for the implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry that has already been done.

I find it really disappointing that such serious matters are being used as a political football. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East made a valid point about the degree to which these issues were not addressed until very recently. I ask rhetorically: would this new clause even have been tabled were it not for pot-stirring tweets by Elon Musk? I very much doubt it. I therefore think this Committee should do the job we are here to do. We should scrutinise this Bill and not use it as an opportunity to play games with the lives of victims and survivors.

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for his incredible experience and work in this area. I rise to speak about new clause 15, and I hope I can be of service to the Committee, having spent the past seven years of my work as a barrister serving on a public inquiry. I went straight from that to representing a constituency in Derby, the city that was the subject of the first local inquiry into grooming gangs in 2010. Those crimes are despicable and must be rooted out in Derby and elsewhere. Without the bravery of the girls in Derby, those crimes would not have been punished.

I am committed to supporting the considerable action that the Government are taking to ensure that others are punished, and victims and survivors protected and supported. I am really proud to sit on this Bill Committee, which will give the next generation of children and young people in Derby better protection and life chances. The Education Secretary rightly described this as the “single biggest piece” of children’s safeguarding legislation in a generation. I will seek to set out why new clause 15 does nothing to contribute to that aim.

My first concern about new clause 15 is that it seeks to rerun the same questions from the seven-year long independent inquiry on child sexual abuse—IICSA. The inquiry panel was chaired by Professor Alexis Jay OBE, who had undertaken the 2014 independent inquiry into child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. That identified at least 1,400 children and young people in Rotherham who had been sexually abused or exploited.

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“identify common patterns of behaviour and offending”.

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

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

“type, extent and volume of crimes”

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

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

“(i) police,

(ii) local authorities,

(iii) prosecutors,

(iv) charities,

(v) political parties,

(vi) local…government,

(vii) healthcare providers…or

(viii) other agencies or bodies”.

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

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

It also examined the extent to which

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

It examined the extent to which

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said at the beginning of my speech that I am really proud to sit on this Bill Committee on the single biggest piece of children’s safeguarding legislation in a generation. Although I may not agree with the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire on new clause 15, I acknowledge that they have shown as much support for parts of this Bill as anyone, from the family group decision-making meetings, which they thought were “a good thing” and supported, to the inclusion of childcare in schools in safeguarding arrangements, which they said was a very good idea and supported.

The Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston, said that

“we welcome the inclusion of education agencies in safeguarding arrangements.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2025; c. 130.]

On multi-agency protection teams, we heard that they were

“extremely supportive of this principle and agenda”

and “generally welcome the clause”, which they described as “sensible”. We heard the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston say that

“it has the potential to address some of the really serious information-sharing gaps that have been so visible in pretty much every serious case review, from Victoria Climbié to the present day.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2025; c. 133.]

On information sharing and consistent identifiers, we heard that it was

“a very good and important idea, and one of which we are completely supportive.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 23 January 2025; c. 146.]

On the provision of advice and support for care leavers, we heard:

“Again, the Opposition support the Government’s objectives in this clause to provide staying close support”. ––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee,28 January 2025; c. 177.]

On the following clause, on a local offer for care leavers, we were told:

“This is a good and sensible clause”.––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 185.]

On the list of what needs to be included in the local offer and how local authorities will co-operate with housing authorities and provide accommodation for those aged under 25, we heard “this is all good stuff”. Similarly, in relation to regional co-operation and looked-after children accommodation, we heard them say “we support the clause”. The hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said:

“Were we in office, I suspect that we would be very much considering the same clause.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 190.]

On the ill treatment and wilful neglect of 16 and 17-year-olds, we also saw the Opposition’s support. We were told that clause 19

“closes an important gap in the law”.––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c. 239.]

Finally, we saw support for the Government’s intention in relation to withholding consent to home educate where there are safeguarding concerns or a child protection plan. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire said that the Bill was

“right to introduce a register of children not in school”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 30 January 2025; c. 294.]

and that that was “our policy when in government”.

It is important to list just how much of the Bill the Opposition have shown their support for in this Committee. This Bill will improve the safety of children, particularly young women and girls in deprivation and in care, such as those who have been targeted by grooming gangs. I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham, who last week said that she was

“pretty outraged—that Conservative colleagues sought to weaponise the issue on Second Reading to try to kill off the entire Bill.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 6 February 2025; c. 469.]

The Opposition have been grabbing at headlines to call for an inquiry to address the same questions already asked—

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

The hon. Lady makes an important point. This is an incredibly serious issue, and we should not be introducing anything that might inadvertently mislead. The Government control the time of the House of Commons. This Bill should probably have been two Bills to begin with; there are two distinct subjects in part 1 and part 2, but, for some reason, they were put together. There was nothing to stop the Government, at any point, from separating out parts of the Bill and reintroducing them immediately into the House of Commons—they literally control the timetable. On the Order Paper today, there was a statement on the business of the House. The Government can change the time and change what is considered in the House of Commons as they choose.

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine if the wrecking amendment—

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

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

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

Darren Paffey (Labour, Southampton Itchen)

I pay huge tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for her frankly masterful navigation through the facts. This moment demands the facts—not misrepresentation and the dismissal of previous inquiries, but the gravitas and experience that she has brought to the debate. I believe that has kept the Committee on the track that it is meant to be on.

I simply make the observation against the new clause that this Bill and this moment require leadership. Leadership looks like getting on with making the changes that we have heard about in great detail. The subject has already been thoroughly and fully investigated, with recommendations made by a leading expert. It is time to make those changes to our country, to our law and to our services, first, to allow us to reflect on the past, and the report does that, and, secondly, so that we can get on with catching those who continue to do such things—and that is the horror of it. We are not just talking about something historical. Without doubt, such things are going on as we speak.

It is time to ensure that the whole of Government work together so that our law enforcement agencies are resourced to catch those who perpetrate such disgusting crimes. Crucially, this is the moment to ensure that we prevent them happening in the future. Several of the report’s 20 recommendations are already in train and implementation should be the absolute priority.

That is what leading looks like at this moment, but when it comes to following I am afraid that I agree with the observation made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire. Some people have become a little bedazzled by social media suggestion and innuendo from certain individuals, wherever they are in the world. Opposition Members should be honest about it: such individuals have absolutely no genuine interest in the victims whose sufferings are known, but have their own political agenda to follow. They use their social media platform to do that, and none of it moves us any closer to doing what we need to do, which is to reflect, to catch the criminals and to prevent such crimes in future.

Those who are able to separate fact from trend will know that the urgent priority at this moment, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North so thoughtfully set out, is to act. Anything that becomes a distraction from that should not be supported.

Amanda Martin (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I want to start by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen that leadership and action are needed. Indeed, leadership and action were needed three years ago in February 2022 when the IICSA report came out. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for her knowledgeable insights and her forensic examination of the Bill, the recommendations and the report. I will spend a moment establishing for the record what exactly those 20 recommendations are asking for, which we as a Government have committed to implementing in full—albeit three years too late for some victims.

Let me list the headings of the report. The first is on a mandatory aggravating factor for CSE offences. The second is on statutory guidance on preventing CSE. The third is on data collection and analysis, and establishing a national database. The fourth is about strengthening the criminal justice response. The fifth is about training for professionals and requiring mandatory training for all professionals working with children, including social workers, police and healthcare staff, to help them recognise the signs of exploitation and act accordingly. The sixth is about a national framework for support, and developing a national framework for services to ensure that appropriate support is available for victims. The seventh is about supporting victims and improving the availability and accessibility of specialised support services for victims. The eighth concerns tailored responses to CSE victims, ensuring authorities provide a tailored response to the specific needs of children who are victims. The ninth is about launching a national public awareness campaign to raise awareness of CSE, educating the public and reducing the stigma that surrounds the victims. The 10th is to strengthen safeguarding in schools and introduce better protocols. The 11th is about tackling perpetrators of CSE, strengthening law enforcement’s abilities to target them. The 12th is for a Government review of safeguarding systems, conducting a review of the national safeguarding system to ensure current measures are sufficiently robust to address child sexual exploitation and victims. The 13th is to ensure adequate local authority resources. The 14th concerns independence for local safeguarding boards. The 15th recommends a review of the placement of settings for vulnerable children. The 16th calls for a stronger legal framework for CSE. The 17th is about increasing the use of risk assessment tools. The 18th is about rehabilitation and reintegration services. The 19th is on specialised support for parents and families and the 20th on a regular review of local authority practices. Each one of those 20 recommendations has the victims at its heart.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East, for Derby North, for Southampton Itchen and for Portsmouth North, and to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, for their thoughtful and measured contributions on this incredibly challenging issue. The Prime Minister has made clear that as a Government we are focused on delivering the change and justice that victims deserve.

On 7 January, the Home Secretary outlined in Parliament commitments to introduce a mandatory duty for those engaging with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, making grooming an aggravating factor to toughen up sentencing and introduce a new performance framework for policing.

On 16 January, the Home Secretary made a further statement to the House that before Easter the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations in the final IICSA report, which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North powerfully set out. All of those recommendations were for the Home Office, including on disclosing and barring, and work on them is already under way.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

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

New Clause 17 - Academy conversion support grant

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

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

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

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

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

It adds that that will have

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

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

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

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

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

New Clause 18 - School Trust CEO Programme

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

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

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

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

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

New Clause 20 - Approved free schools and university training colleges in pre-opening

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

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

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

Stephen Morgan (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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

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

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

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 21 - School attendance: general duties on local authorities

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

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

Stephen Morgan (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Christopher Chope (Conservative, Christchurch)

Order. The Committee will meet again at 2 o’clock.

(Afternoon)

New Clause 21 - School attendance: general duties on local authorities

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield South East)

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

Stephen Morgan (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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 (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 25 - Report on the impact of charging VAT on private school fees

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Around my constituency, we have seen the closure of a couple of local independent schools, which have blamed the decision to introduce VAT. This will mean more people looking for places in local state schools that are already oversubscribed and, in turn, fewer people getting their first choice. New clause 25 is not about the principle of the tax, but about having a proper mechanism to monitor the impact on the state system, among other things.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

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 (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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 (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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.

New Clause 30 - Publication of details of preventative care and family support

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

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

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield South East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss:

New Clause 72 - Duty on local authorities to provide family support services

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. New clause 30 is a simple clause that would put into statute the duty on every local authority to publish the details of their available preventive care and family support, because we know that those are crucial forms of early intervention for children who may be at risk of going into care or where families are struggling. They can prevent things getting to crisis point for families and children.

We know that a huge amount of good work is going on in local authorities up and down the country. Spending on preventive care is falling, while late intervention spend is rising, so it would be good practice for all local authorities to make that information freely and easily accessible to all families in the way that we have already legislated for, for instance, with the kinship care offer. I hope Ministers will seriously consider this simple new clause.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I rise to speak in particular to new clause 72, which is on a similar topic to new clause 30, although arguably is not quite as simply drafted. The number of children in care is at an all-time high, and outcomes for those children remain poor. Evidence from the children’s charity Action for Children shows that children who have any interaction with social care are twice as likely to fail an English or maths GCSE than their peers. We need to change those outcomes, preferably through early intervention.

We have spent much time in Committee discussing the Bill’s provisions on improving care for children who need to live with a foster family or in a residential home. It is important that the best possible support is available for those children who, for whatever reason, cannot live with their birth families. However, to significantly improve children’s social care, we need to radically reset the system with a much greater focus on helping families earlier on.

I welcome the Ministers’ comments in our previous debates that the Government are committed to helping children growing up in our country to get the best start in life through wider investment in family hubs and parenting support. However, as drafted, the Bill does little to do this. Only one section of the Bill, which covers family group decision making, and which we discussed right at the start, directly addresses the need for more early intervention. Unless we amend the Bill to go further, we will continue to have a system heavily balanced towards working with families when they reach crisis point, rather than one that seeks to prevent problems before they start.

As we have discussed, families in England face mounting pressures from the lingering effects of covid-19, the high cost of living and economic uncertainty. At the same time, there have been significant cuts to services to support families. I find this statistic shocking: between 2010-11 and 2022-23, spending on early help, such as family homes and children’s centres, decreased by 44%, while spending on late intervention, including children in care, increased by 57%. The skew is going the wrong way, and it does not have to be this way.

Since the late 1990s, several initiatives have been aimed at providing support to families in their communities. That includes the Sure Start centres—first established in 1997, with more than 3,500 children’s centres having been developed by 2009—and the latest family hubs, which provide support to parents from pre-birth all the way through to 18. These centres provided welcome, non-stigmatising support for families. The services they offer and have offered are varied, but often include provisions such as stay-and-play sessions, speech and language support or benefit and employment advice for parents.

While welcomed by families themselves, too often such services are seen as a “nice to have” and subject to cuts when funding is short. It is perhaps not surprising that evidence suggests that around 1,000 such centres have shut since 2009, but we know that cutting early support for families is a false economy. It does not benefit children and families, who are too often left to struggle alone, and it does not save money in the long term. In fact, spending on early intervention programmes has repeatedly been shown to be cheaper than spending later. And this is not just about the finances; it is about the wellbeing of children and families.

On money, the children’s charity Barnardo’s has calculated that spending on the Welcome to Parenthood programme offered through many of its family hubs delivers £2.44 in benefits for every £1 spent, which is good value. That is why the Bill must go further in its noble aim of reforming children’s social care. We need a much more equal emphasis given to local authorities’ obligations to support children and families early on and in their community, alongside their and our important obligations to support children who need to go into care.

My new clause will introduce a new requirement for local authorities to provide sufficient family support services, such as family hubs, for all families in their area. It will build on the provisions in section 17 of the Children Act 1989, which require local authorities to provide support services but only to children who have been assessed as in need. The new clause will broaden that provision, thus requiring local authorities to have a wider family support offer that is available to all families in the community. I do not pretend that that is a small undertaking—I recognise its scale—and it would need to be accompanied by spending allocated in the forthcoming spending review if we are to make it a reality, but as I have outlined, it is a great investment in the future of our kids.

Without sufficient access to early support, too many families are reaching crisis point. We have heard time and again from reports, reviews and inquiries that the children’s social care system must be rebalanced towards early intervention. The Bill, with the new clause, is our opportunity to do just that.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for Twickenham in tabling new clause 30, and I agree that local authorities should be transparent about the services available to support children and families. However, our statutory guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children,” already requires local authorities and their statutory safeguarding partners to publish accessible information about the services that they offer children and families, including preventive services and family support.

I welcome the reference that the hon. Member for Twickenham made to preventive services and family support. The Government are committed to rebalancing the children’s social care system towards earlier intervention and reversing the trend of unsustainable spending at the crisis end of the system. Ou reforms to family help and multi-agency child protection, backed by over £500 million of investment in the next financial year, will improve access to early intervention services and ensure that more children and families can access the help and support that they need at the earliest opportunity.

I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire in tabling new clause 72, and I agree that local authorities should have a range of services available to support all children and young people and their families, but we have already planned investments of over £600 million for family services, across the spectrum of need—from universal services through to children’s social care interventions—in 2025-26. Through the family hubs and Start for Life programme, 75 of the most deprived local authorities in England have received funding to set up family hubs with integrated Start for Life services at their core. An additional 13 local authorities have been supported in opening family hubs through an earlier transformation fund.

By joining up and enhancing services, family hubs provide a welcoming front door to vital support to improve health, education, and the wellbeing of babies, children, young people and their families. More than 400 family hubs are funded through that programme. In 2025-26, local authorities will receive a further £126 million of combined funding from the Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care.

Our reforms to family help and multi-agency child protection, backed by over £500 million of investment in the next financial year, will improve access to early intervention services and ensure that children and families with multiple and/or complex needs can access the help and support they need at the earliest opportunity. I hope that that response is reassuring and that the hon. Member for Twickenham feels able to withdraw the amendment.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 31 - Eligibility for free school lunches

New Clause 33 - Duty of school governing bodies regarding mental health provision

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

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 (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

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

Stephen Morgan (Labour, Portsmouth South)

Yes.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

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 (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I wish to press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 34 - National Tutoring Guarantee

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

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

The new clause seeks to introduce a tutoring guarantee so that every disadvantaged pupil who may have fallen behind gets the extra support they absolutely deserve. Members across the House will recall that on the back of covid, we had the national tutoring programme, which, according to all evidence, despite being beset with all sorts of challenges when it was rolled out, helped to boost attainment, confidence and school attendance. Sadly, the money for the national tutoring programme and the 16 to 19 tutoring fund ran out in July of last year.

The previous Conservative Government did not agree to extend the programme, and the new Labour Government have not agreed to reintroduce it. Given Ministers’ commitment to extending opportunity to all, particularly the most disadvantaged—we know that the attainment gap has been growing since covid—would they support a tutoring guarantee? A tutoring guarantee would prioritise children from low-income backgrounds who have low attainment or additional needs, as well as those who are young carers, and would enable an estimated 1.75 million disadvantaged young people each year to get additional tutoring help and support. It would empower headteachers, who know their children best, to set up tutoring in a way that works for them and their pupils. They could use their own teaching staff or recruit tutors themselves, if they want to, or they could choose from quality-assured external providers. I hope that Ministers will seriously consider this amendment or tell us how else they will address some of these challenges, which we know our children up and down the country face.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern, and I thank her for raising this issue. We believe that schools are best placed to understand the needs of their pupils and should be able to choose from a range of options to best suit those needs, with tutoring being one option, but not the only one.

Although the national tutoring programme ended on 31 August 2024, schools can continue to provide tutoring through the use of their pupil premium and other school funds. The pupil premium is funding to support the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils, and schools can direct spending where they think the need and impact is greatest. The Department for Education has already published guidance, based on evidence gathered through the national tutoring programme, on how to plan and deliver tutoring to pupils to support schools that wish to use this option. Pupil premium guidance sets out approaches, including tutoring, that can be used to support disadvantaged pupils, including those in the groups identified in the new clause. With that in mind, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Twickenham to withdraw the clause.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 36 - Establishment of a National Body for SEND

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

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

We all know across this House that the special educational needs system is in absolute crisis across the country. Ministers have recognised the need for reform on multiple occasions. We have been assured that Ministers are working on it, and I have no doubt that they are working incredibly hard. New clause 36 provides them with a first step on that road to reform.

The new clause would establish a new dedicated national body for SEND, which would act as a champion for children with complex needs. It would also ensure that standards are being met across the country and that children are receiving the tailored support they need. We know that spending on high needs has trebled since 2015, but as the schools Ministers herself has pointed out on a number of occasions, educational outcomes for SEND pupils have remained stagnant, with only 8% meeting expected standards at the end of primary school.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield South East)

Order. A Division has been called in the House. We will suspend the sitting for 15 minutes if there is one vote, and 15 minutes extra for every other vote. I hope—going back to our primary school education—we can all work those sums out.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I will pick up where I left off, on the third of the three key functions that this national SEND body would have. Those functions are advising on funding for local authorities, offering guidance based on current need and moving away from outdated spending models.

The second function provides families and local authorities with the assurance they need that, when a child with very high needs is identified, funding for those needs is available and can be met through a central pot. When I am asked about that, I liken it to highly specialised NHS commissioning for rare conditions. It would eliminate the postcode lottery for families and the funding risk for local authorities; when a local authority comes across a child who has very, very complex needs and requires support, it can put a big pressure on its high-needs block.

This body would ensure consistency in standards across the country and drive continuous improvement. It is an important piece of the puzzle in reforming a SEND system that was described as “lose, lose, lose” by the previous Conservative Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue. As she knows, we are absolutely aware of the challenges in the SEND system and how urgently we need to address them, but, as I know she appreciates, these are complex issues and need a considered approach to deliver sustainable change. We do not believe that the SEND system needs another body that would add to the bureaucracy in the system. The focus is on making the system less bureaucratic and getting support to children and young people who need it quickly and efficiently.

The Children and Families Act 2014 requires local authorities to work with a wide range of partners, including schools, colleges, health and, crucially, parents and young people, to develop their local offer of services and provision for special educational needs and disabilities. That recognises the differing circumstances of each local area and places decision making with the local authority. Crucially, decisions about provision for individual children and young people with statutory education, health and care plans are currently made by the local authority, which will know its schools, colleges and settings and the provision that they can offer in a way that a national body could not.

I absolutely recognise the challenges of supporting children with very high needs, particularly those who require highly specialist provision. Local authorities have statutory responsibilities to make joint commissioning arrangements about education, health and care provision for all children and young people who have special educational needs or a disability in the local authority’s area. We do not believe that a new body is required to support local authorities to deliver on those duties. The Government keep the funding formula and other arrangements that the Department uses to allocate funding for children and young people with SEND under review, and it is important that there is a fair education funding system that directs funding where it is needed. The input of stakeholders will be invaluable as we review current arrangements, but there is no need for a new national body to do that. Although I absolutely take on board the intentions and concerns of the hon. Member for Twickenham, I kindly request that the new clause be withdrawn.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I shall disappoint the Minister: I would like to press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 37 - Arrangements for national examinations for children not in school

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

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 (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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 (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 38 - Consultation on the structures of governance for local authority and academy schools

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

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

I move this new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), who is herself a school governor, to highlight the severe shortage of school governors and the increasing responsibilities they face. The recruitment of governors has become increasingly difficult. Indeed, the National Governance Association estimates that in 2022 vacancies hit a six-year high at 20,000. Its latest report last year revealed that 76% of schools found it difficult to recruit governors, while 44% of boards had two or more vacancies, up from 33% three years ago. Moreover, 30% of governors considered resigning because of an inability to balance their governance responsibilities with their jobs.

Evidence shows that the responsibilities of school governors have significantly increased over time, and Ofsted said that since schools’ autonomy increased, starting with the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the role has become more important but also more complex. Historically, school governors provided formal oversight, but they are now also expected to ensure regular performance reviews and financial oversight, and to hold school leadership accountable. The position has become increasingly professionalised, and Ofsted has identified that growth in responsibility as a key factor in many schools struggling to achieve a good or higher rating. That is largely because governors fail to focus on holding school leadership accountable, and have that split responsibility with other aspects of the role. The new clause seeks to probe that issue more, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss governance structures in schools and academies. I sincerely thank the incredible volunteer force, which is a vital part of our system. I have such admiration for those in our communities who step up and invest their precious time and energy in our schools and young people. Governors and trustees work tirelessly in the interests of pupils and students in what we recognise is an often challenging environment. We really do owe them a debt of thanks.

Although effective structures support high and rising standards, we always have to consider carefully whether changing structures could lead to more disruption than benefit. The Government are focusing on standards, rather than structures. We will drive improvements of school and trust leadership and management through the introduction of school report cards from autumn 2025. We are currently working with governance sector partners, including the National Governance Association and the Confederation of School Trusts, to support their efforts to champion governance, help schools and trusts recruit and retain governors and trustees, and think creatively about structures.

Existing legislation and guidance already enable flexibility in relation to governance structures’ size and constitution, and we encourage governing boards to take advantage of the flexibilities they already have when designing their governance structures and assessing their individual needs. We continue to keep the legal requirements and guidance on governance under review, and we will make changes that improve the system. I hope I have reassured the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire that we are already working with the sector to address these challenges, and that he will accordingly withdraw the new clause.

Ian Sollom (Liberal Democrat, St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 39 - Establishment of Child Protection Authority

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

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

I rise to speak to new clause 39, in my name and those of a number of my hon. Friends, which seeks to fulfil the second recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse by establishing a child protection authority in England, which would be an arm’s length body of the Government on a par with organisations such as the National Crime Agency. As the inquiry set out, its role would be to

“improve practice in child protection by institutions, including statutory agencies;…provide advice to government in relation to policy and reform to improve child protection, including through the publication of regular reports to Parliament and making recommendations; and…inspect institutions as it considers necessary.”

I recently met Professor Jay and a member of the panel who was involved in that review, and they felt that there are certain gaps in the inspection regime across the country, so having this overarching national body with a focus on child protection is a really important recommendation and step forward. Indeed, it was the report’s second recommendation. The child protection authority would monitor the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations.

I am very grateful that the Government have already committed to implementing the recommendations, but I gently say to Ministers that this Bill, which we have spent several weeks going through in detail, already focuses on a number of safeguards and child protection measures. One of the many reasons that the previous Government gave for not implementing some of the recommendations was a lack of legislative time, which I struggle to understand given the number of times the House rose early in the previous Parliament. Given that the IICSA recommendation requires legislation and we are considering a very relevant Bill, I am not entirely sure that the Government are committed to implementing it as they are not legislating for a child protection authority.

When we discussed new clause 15 this morning, the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said that many of the crimes explored in the report are undoubtedly ongoing. Therefore, what could be more important than putting these provisions in place? I very much hope Ministers will seriously consider implementing this recommendation quickly and using the legislative opportunity. Even if they will not accept my new clause, there is time as the Bill progresses through Parliament to put into legislation one of Professor Jay’s key recommendations.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are focused on delivering the change and justice that victims deserve. As I set out earlier in response to new clause 15, on 6 January, the Home Secretary outlined in Parliament the commitments to introduce a mandatory duty for those engaging with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, making grooming an aggravating factor to toughen up sentencing, and introducing a new performance framework for policing.

On 16 January, the Home Secretary made a further statement to the House that before Easter, the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations from the final Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse report. Four were for the Home Office, including on disclosure and barring, and I know that work is already under way on those. As the Home Secretary stated, a cross-Government ministerial group is considering and working through the remaining recommendations, and that group will be supported by a new victims and survivors panel. Again, as I mentioned, the Government will also be implementing all the remaining recommendations in IICSA’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022, and as part of that we will update key Department for Education guidance.

This landmark Bill will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care systems, so that every child can achieve and thrive. It will protect children at risk of abuse and help to stop vulnerable children falling through cracks in service. I therefore urge hon. Members to support the Bill and the measures, and to withdraw the new clause.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I am still at a loss to understand why, if the Government support the recommendations, they are not using this legislative opportunity. I will therefore press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 42 - Establishment of National Wellbeing Measurement Programme

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

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 (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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 (Conservative, East Hampshire)

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 (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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 (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I wish to press the new clause.

New Clause 48 - Ban on mobile telephones and other devices in schools

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

When I was on the Science and Technology Committee in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Even then the evidence was alarming; now it is absolutely terrifying. Children are now given smartphones at a very early age. A quarter of the UK’s three and four-year-olds own a smartphone, and by the end of primary school, four out of five kids have one. Over the past decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world. Over the exact same period, smartphones and social media became dominant in children’s lives. The growth in anxiety and mental health problems that we are seeing is focused almost entirely in young people, not older people.

There are many channels through which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. First, they displace time in the real world with friends. US data shows that prior to 2012, children spent more than two hours a day with friends. By 2019, that had halved. The proportion of kids feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world.

The invention of infinite-scroll social media has always reminded me of the famous social science experiment with the bottomless soup bowl. In this experiment, people were invited to eat from a soup bowl that was, unbeknownst to them, invisibly refilled from below. The constant refilling made people eat nearly twice as much as they would with a normal bowl—in some cases absurd amounts of soup.

This is not just about a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Kids are tired in school. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively, and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip-feed the user dopamine. The same problems are happening not just in the English-speaking world, but in the Nordic nations and all across western Europe. Alternative explanations do not fit the data.

Well-funded efforts by the tech industry to lobby, muddy the water, run interference and sow confusion are unconvincing. These problems are not just a coincidence. There is more and more evidence for a causal link to the disaster hitting our kids. Sapien Labs asked questions about adults’ mental health and combined them into a mental health quotient. They asked the same people when they got a smartphone. Some 28,000 people answered and the results were stark: the earlier a person gets a phone, the worse their adult mental health. That was particularly the case for girls.

On new clause 33, we heard from the hon. Member for Twickenham about the mental health challenge. Data from the OECD’s PISA found that, on average, two thirds of 15-year-olds across OECD countries reporting being distracted using digital devices, including phones, in most or every maths class. In addition, around 60% of pupils got distracted by other pupils using digital devices. That PISA data showed a “tangible” association between the use of digital devices in schools and bad learning outcomes. Students who reported being distracted by peers using devices in some or most maths classes scored significantly lower in maths tests, equivalent to three quarters of a year’s-worth of education. The effects are large.

Other studies have found that the use of smartphones in classrooms leads to students engaging in non-school-related activities—unsurprisingly—which adversely affects recall and comprehension. One study found that it can take students up to 20 minutes to refocus on what they were supposed to be learning after engaging in a non-academic activity.

Many parents know the problems with smartphones, but we face a collective action problem. We worry that our kids will miss out if they are the only ones without them, and we need to solve this problem. Across the country, there has been an explosion of parent-powered campaign groups aiming to fight back, including Smartphone Free Childhood, Safe Screens, and Delay Smartphones, to name but a few. They are doing inspiring work. Mumsnet has started a “Rage Against the Screen” campaign.

The Children’s Commissioner said:

“I honestly think that we will look back in 20 years’ time and be absolutely horrified by what we allowed our children to be exposed to.”

She is right. The shift to a screen-based childhood is having bad effects on young people, from mental health to school readiness to children simply turning up exhausted because they have been on their phone all night. These effects are set to widen gaps in achievement unless something decisive is done.

There are many things that the Government should do, but the first is to implement a proper ban on phones in school. The last Government issued guidance, but that is not enough. Although 90% of schools would say that they have some sort of ban, a survey by Policy Exchange last year found that only one in 10 schools had a full start-to-finish ban, which is the policy that we know works best. Lots of schools are still trying policies where kids have phones on them but are not supposed to have them out. The effect is that kids are distracted, teachers have to tell them to put them away, and all the issues to do with bullying and social media are in play during break times and more.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for banning smartphones in schools, but does he agree that banning smartphones in schools will not, in and of itself, tackle the problems that he has articulated? A recently published study, the first proper nationwide study of its type, shows that banning smartphones in school does not generate any statistical differences in various outcomes, because there is no difference in the amount of time that children are spending on their devices. Although there are strong arguments for banning them in school—and I recognise that there is a strong call for that from parents, teachers and, indeed, many students—a much more holistic approach is needed to tackle the harms that he has outlined.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

The hon. Lady makes a thoughtful point. There is a fantastic meta-analysis published by the London School of Economics and the 5Rights Foundation of all the different studies that have been done on this around Europe. The hon. Lady referred to a specific study, which I hope to speak to the authors about. It is a good study, and perfectly sensible, but the issue is that it cannot find anything statistically significant because it looked at only 30 schools, with a sample size of about 1,200 pupils. It does not look at any natural experiments either, so it does not look at schools that are changing their policies.

Where we have good RCT-like evidence, like in the great study in Spain, where they looked at a province that changed its policy wholesale, we can see from those natural experiments the really powerful effects of in-school policies. I agree with the hon. Lady that this is not the only thing that we should do. The study she mentioned was not wrong; it just could never show us the things that people are interested in. Indeed, there is plenty of other evidence out there in these meta-analyses, and from Jonathan Haidt’s website, of really powerful in-school effects.

A study in the US shows that a class time-only rule does not give teachers as much benefit as they might expect. Research from the National Education Association found that 73% of teachers in schools that allow phone use between classes find that phones are disruptive during classes. The same is true here. The Department for Education’s national behaviour survey, published in April 2024, found that 35% of secondary school teachers reported mobile phones being used during lessons without permission. The problem is more pronounced for older children, unsurprisingly. Some 46% of pupils in years 10 to 11 reported mobile phones being used when they should not have been during “most or all” lessons. That is nearly half of pupils in most or all lessons reporting disruption, so the problem is absolutely there in the DFE’s data.

The idea that guidance has done the trick and that there is no longer a problem to solve is contradicted by the Department’s evidence. Work by the company Teacher Tapp, also known as School Surveys, similarly finds very high levels of problems and no signs of progress. Instead of guidance, all schools should be mandated and funded to have lockers and pouches, and to get kids to put smartphones away for the whole day, including breaks. Schools should be the beachhead and the first place that we re-create a smartphone-free childhood—seven hours in which we de-normalise being on the phone all the time for young people.

Why do we need a full ban, and not just guidance? I already gave some of the data showing that the guidance has not worked, but there are two other reasons. First, we need to support schools and have their back. From speaking to teachers and school leaders, I know that the pressures from parents to allow phones can be really severe on schools. Some parents, unfortunately, can be unreasonably determined that they must be able to contact their child directly at any minute, even though they are perfectly safe in schools. In the sorts of places where three and four-year-olds have smartphones, that is, I am afraid, normalised now, so a national ban would make things simpler and take the heat off schools.

Secondly, a full and total ban is needed as part of a wider resetting of social norms, as the hon. Member for North Herefordshire said, about children and smartphones. Smartphones and social media are doing damage to education even when they are not being used in schools. Our new clause 48 aims to be proportionate, and subsection (2)(b) would allow for exceptions as appropriate, having learned the lessons of what has been done in other countries.

To come to the hon. Lady’s wider point, when I was a Health Minister, I wanted us to get going an equivalent of the famous five bits of fruit and veg a day for this field—other Members might remember “Don’t Die of Ignorance” or “Clunk Click Every Trip”. We need some big things to reset the culture and wake up a lot of people, who are not necessarily going to read Jonathan Haidt’s book, to dangers that they may be unaware of. The heavy exposure of our kids to addictive-by-design products of the tech industry is the smoking of our generation. As with smoking, the tech industry comes up with fake solutions that do not actually make things safe. In the 1950s, it was filters on cigarettes, and now it is the supposed parental filters on social media. Just like with smoking, there is unfortunately a powerful social gradient to unmonitored internet access, with the worst effects on the poorest.

I do not know what Ministers will do about our new clause this time round, and I do not know what they will do as the Bill goes through the other place, but I hope that they will end up implementing this idea at some point. I will take my hat off to them when they do.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I come at this new clause first and foremost as a parent before I look at it as an MP. Looking at it with both hats on, though, I have long supported the previous Government’s guidance to schools to try to ban mobile phones during the school day. For a long time, I have needed convincing that a legislative ban was required, but I have finally concluded that we probably need to move towards one, partly for the reasons that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston outlined. Some heads and school staff come under a lot of pressure from parents to allow the use of phones during the school day, but if this were a statutory requirement, the Government would have to provide the support needed to implement it.

Just this week, I talked to the headteacher of a secondary school in my constituency. He is very keen to implement a ban on phones during the school day, and he is trying, but kids are getting their phones out at various times and not staying off them. It is a fairly new school, but for some reason it was built without lockers, so there are no lockers. He has looked into purchasing lockers or Yondr pouches—the phone pouches that I believe the Irish Government have bought wholesale for every school in Ireland—and he said that that would cost him about £20,000, which he did not have in his budget. Putting the ban into statute would give headteachers and teaching staff the clout they need with parents who particularly want their children to have their phones during the school day, and the Government would need to resource the ban so that schools could implement it.

I draw Members’ attention to subsection (2) of the new clause, which deals with exemptions, because that is a very important point. Proper exemptions are important for young carers or children with health conditions that need monitoring via apps. School leaders and teachers know their children best, and they know which children need exemptions. I would be interested to know what the consequences would look like—would they fall on the school? I do not think the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston touched on that, but I would be interested in discussing another time how he thinks this ban could be enforced. It is just one of a suite of measures that we as policymakers need to take now, given the harm that phones and access to social media are undoubtedly doing to our children and young people.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has made about the addictive quality of screen time. I also draw attention to the fact that the addictive nature of screen time is obviously a result of technology, but it is also due to a lack of competition from other uses of a child’s time.

As such, it still staggers me that the first debate in eight years on playgrounds took place only because I secured it. The Conservative Government did not call a debate on playgrounds in their 14 years in government, and the only strategy ever on national play was launched by Ed Balls and Andy Burnham in 2008, with £230 million made available. Several years later, the coalition Government drew a red line through that strategy. We have also seen a hollowing out of children’s centres and Sure Start centres—really, of the whole fabric of what a child’s early developmental years could be. The places where parents could get support—not just to be parents alongside each other, but to raise their children and help them to develop—have all been hacked away. We need to look at children’s wellbeing in that context.

I have reservations about the hon. Member’s proposal, partly because I think we need a clearer distinction between a mobile telephone and a smartphone. As somebody who was born in the 1980s and grew up in the 1990s, I see mobile telephones as typically restricted to SMS—I think that is what the kids call it these days—voice calls and maybe an alarm. A smartphone is something far more advanced, which has destructive social media, addictive apps, games and the like. Greater clarity about the distinction between mobile phones and smartphones might be helpful as we navigate this debate.

It was interesting to hear the Conservative spokesperson call for collective action. I am always a fan of that, and I encourage him to continue down that path. I am happy to have a cup of coffee with him as we discuss it.

This new clause is interesting in the context of the many Bill Committee sittings in which Conservative Members have accused the Labour Government of using a centralising hand. Rather than sticking with the previous Conservative Government’s guidance to schools, the new clause proposes a ban. The approach feels much more centralising, with far less trust placed in teachers and headteachers, than we might expect based on the last few weeks of discussion.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I anticipated that the hon. Member would say something of the sort. His argument is perfectly reasonable, and I tried to answer that exact point in my speech. We think that aspects of the Bill are too micro-managing, but we want central Government to take the heat for schools on this issue. That is both to make it easier for schools and, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, because there should be a proper plan to roll this out at scale, as is happening in other countries in Europe.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I understood the point that the hon. Member made in his speech, and I understand his clarification. I still struggle to see how the new clause fits in with what I regard as the Conservative party’s ideology around schooling and children’s wellbeing. It feels anomalous to ask headteachers and teachers to work within a ban, rather than trusting them to use the flexibility that the previous Government gave them.

One highlight of the Committee’s debate over the last few weeks has been the recognition that our teachers and headteachers know their students best. It is important that we give them all the trust and support that they deserve. I sympathise with what the hon. Member says about addictive apps, but for me it is not about banning, per se; it is about creating a viable and better alternative that gives children and teenagers much better things to do with their time.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I rise to speak in favour of the new clause. Unusually, I will start by saying what the new clause will not do, and the limits of the change it proposes.

The truth is that the vast majority of online harm does not happen at school. Banning phones or social media in school will not necessarily reduce the total amount of time that children spend online or address schools’ worries about kids being online, such as the concern about the increasing number of children who turn up to school having not slept sufficiently to be ready for the day. Nor does the new clause address the wider problems—not day to day, but more chronic—with attention span and eyesight. We have recently heard a lot about the greater prevalence of myopia.

Rules in this area are still important, however, and behaviour in school is crucial for teacher recruitment and, particularly, retention. Three big things have changed in schools in the last few years. The first is an attitudinal shift that came about around the time of covid, and that it will take us some years to understand. The other two are vapes and phones. It cannot be overstated how much those three things affect what happens in a school, the feel of the school and what teachers and headteachers report back.

The first thing that schoolchildren need for learning is to be able to concentrate. There is good reason to believe that even when a child is not using a phone, the fact that it is in their pocket—that it could buzz, vibrate or whatever at any point—can distract them. I think it is an important principle that the entire school day, including break time and lunch time, should be reserved for what school is about: learning, developing and being with friends. The question, as always, is whether we leave that to individual schools or have a national rule, and the hon. Member for Bournemouth East was right to speak about the tension between the two. I confess that that is a question I have personally had to grapple with on more than one occasion, and there is not a single, simple answer.

In the Bill, there are many national rules for things that arguably do not need a national rule, and that could be left to individual schools so that they can do what is best for their school community—from the precise number of school uniform items to the exact length of breakfast. The hon. Member is right that the Labour instinct is to say, “Let’s have a national rule on everything; we like consistency.” There is nothing wrong with consistency. He is also right that our instinct is to say, “Leave those rules to the schools wherever possible.” There are, however, times when an overriding national rule is beneficial and makes sense.

In 2019, when I was at the Department for Education, this question came up for me. At the time, we decided not to put a national rule in place. Politicians are always expected to have a firm and clear view on everything, and Ministers are expected to be absolutely certain about every decision they make, but it does not always work like that. Things can often be argued both ways. I was never 100% sure at the time that I was doing the right thing, but I thought I was. In 2024, we introduced non-statutory guidance on how the use of mobile phones should be prohibited throughout the school day, which, crucially, included breaks. We were also clear that there was the option to make the guidance statutory if necessary.

The world has continued to change since then. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Minister described, when it comes to mobile phone use and our worries about children, that change has not made things slightly less bad than they were before. Worries have only deepened and intensified.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

If the hon. Member has counter-examples, let us hear them.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

That is not the point on which I am intervening. I was going to say that by using the language of mobile phone and smartphone interchangeably, we are confusing the debate. If our debate is confused, I am not sure how we can arrive at a certain policy.

I called for agreement with the Government around national rules. I want to clarify that I did not mean on everything, but only on the things in the Bill that I think need national rules. I agree with the right hon. Member that that is what provides consistency.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

The hon. Member is right about the difficulty with defining the term smartphone. People talk about a brick phone, a feature phone, a basic phone, a Nokia, a smartphone and an iPhone, but the truth is that there is no definition; smartphone is just a term. It originally came about when people did not want to use the brand name iPhone, because Samsung phones and other types of phone were available. It just means a smarter phone; it has more stuff on it. Some of the things that people worry about are not necessarily only available on smartphones. I looked recently at iMessage, and it is starting to look more like WhatsApp. Anything that can be used for a group chat has some of the issues that we find in schools that cover the teenage and sub-teenage years.

There are other things that people can get on a smartphone but not on a Nokia that are perfectly benign. Some parents are quite keen for their kids to be able to look at the weather. Some are keen to be able to use the tracking device to follow their child, or for their child to be able to use the mapping device to find their way home, so I agree with the hon. Member.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

This is in danger of turning into a much longer speech than I anticipated.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

It is good to have this point of clarification. The clause uses the rather quaint phrase “mobile telephones” to capture everything, because the distinction between these devices is blurred. Among those who are interested in the smartphone issue, there is a separate debate about the use of dumbphones for things like walking to and from school, but there is no reason why even a dumbphone cannot cause massive distraction if it is out in class. A child could be texting somebody, for example, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the distinction between these things is blurred these days. That is why we have this catch-all term. It is clear, and it is possible to legislate on that basis, notwithstanding our other discussions outside the scope of this debate.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the shadow Minister for refocusing what I was saying, and he is absolutely right. Some of our worries in relation to children apply regardless of the piece of technology. Anything that demands our attention and is ever-present brings such risks.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way? I promise that this will be my last intervention.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

On that promise, I will give way.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I want to labour this point, as it were, because I understand entirely the point that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston made. It is important to do so, because there are parents and children who wish to retain the option of being in contact with each other for safeguarding or wellbeing reasons. Such parents typically draw the distinction between a mobile phone, which allows for SMS and voice calls; and a smartphone, which typically has addictive social media or games, or particular apps that might cause wider safeguarding concerns. That is why I am trying to draw the right hon. Gentleman into focusing on mobile phones—brick phones, Nokia phones or the ones that Snake can be played on—as opposed to more sophisticated phones.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. I had my most recent constituency session with parents on the matter last Friday, and with some things, there is a bit of a grey area. Lots of parents say, “I don’t really mind so much about this”, but others do mind. With tracking technology, for example, some parents say that they really do not like being able to know where their child is. There is some variance, but the one imperative that is common to almost every parent is, “I want my child to be able to call me if they are in trouble, and I want to be able to call them on the way to and from school.” Parents want to hear from children if a club has been cancelled and they will be coming home at a different time, or if they are worried, or whatever it is. It is possible to do that on essentially any phone on the market, from the highest iPhone—I do not know what number they are up to these days—down to the most basic sub-Nokia brick phone.

There are other questions about functionality, and about what social media is. The Australians are having a bit of a debate about that at the moment, because to ban social media, they have to know what they are trying to ban. However, to address directly the point that the hon. Member for Bournemouth East made, much of this discussion relates to all manner of electronica that a child might have in their pocket or bag.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

Are we not getting a bit distracted? The new clause is about banning things from the start of the first lesson to the end of the last, not on the way to or from school when children might want to call their parents.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

The hon. Lady is quite right. I was only going to speak about this for three minutes or so, but the hon. Gentleman tempted me into other areas. On the promise that he was making one last intervention, I indulged him, and I am grateful to him.

In an earlier intervention on the Minister for School Standards, I mentioned the NHS mental health of children and young people survey, which shows us what has happened over time to children’s mental health. There is an inflection point and it comes, contrary to what most people believe, before the covid pandemic. That is the first critical data point to understand.

The second critical data point is that when we look beyond that study at other countries’ studies, we see that none of them are perfectly comparable, but studies in countries such as Germany, France and the United States follow basically the same pattern. There is an increase in the prevalence of mental ill health conditions in all the published data that I have seen for other countries. Whatever people say about domestic politics, whichever party was in Government here and whatever they did, that cannot explain what happens in France or the United States. The fact is that there is a global trend, or at least a trend in the western world, of an increasing prevalence of mental ill health conditions among children.

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

Will the right hon. Member assist me in identifying where the new clause makes it clear that it is only in relation to children, as opposed to anyone in our schools?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

Can the hon. Member please explain what she means?

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

“Are you going to ban teachers from carrying phones?”, I think is what she means.

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

I am grateful—

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield South East)

Order. Can we not have this back and forth across the Committee?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

We can have the classic, “Oh, the wording is technically flawed” argument—which to be fair to the Government, they have not deployed in this Bill Committee yet. We hope the amendment will be subsumed into the Bill, but the Government would never say, “Oh, we’ll just take that amendment and put it in.” Whoever is in Government never says that; they say, “Right, we accept this point. Now we’ll work on the detailed wording”.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

To answer the question that the hon. Member for Derby North asked directly, subsection (2)(b) says the policy

“is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate.”

I think this is—

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

rose—

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

You cannot intervene on an intervention.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield South East)

Order. There is only one speaker at a time and there can be one intervention—I also say to the right hon. Member that there is only one Chair, so let us get it right.

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

I am very grateful—

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

rose—

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

Go on.

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

Does the right hon. Member agree that when we are looking at proposed new clauses in Committee, it is absolutely fundamental that what is written is capable of making meaningful legislation?

Damian Hinds (Conservative, East Hampshire)

Yes, of course; we are legislating, and that is the case. It is also the case that, in my experience in Committee, the Government side never just accept an amendment put forward by the Opposition or another opposition party—or indeed by their own Back Benchers. If that has ever happened in modern history, it has yet to come across my bows. What we do is we debate what we are trying to do. If the new clause—which was drafted with expert help from the House of Commons—was accepted by the Government, as I very much hope it will be, they would without doubt say, “Oh, well, you need to change this, that and the other, and we’d do it slightly differently.” They would then bring forward their own Government new clause, and we would then vote on that on Report. We can have an elongated discussion about this, but I would rather just get to the end of what I was going to say about banning mobile phones in schools, and then—I believe I am right in saying—the hon. Lady may also speak. That is probably the easiest way to do it.

The increasing mental ill health of children and young people should be a matter of very serious concern for all of us. We should remember that it is something that is mirrored in other countries as well. Now, it is entirely scientifically invalid to infer from a correlation of two things—the increasing prevalence of social media and electronica, and the increasing prevalence of mental ill health—that one caused the other. Even if we cannot find any other potential cause that would have affected all those countries in the same way over the same timeframe, it is still scientifically invalid to directly infer causality. Logic has its limits, and I know a few people who seriously contest the idea that the spread and use of, and the very high amounts of time devoted to, mobile phones and social media has been a significant causal factor in that.

There are lots of different ways that one might address that and there are lots of things going on. The Online Safety Act 2023 was a landmark piece of legislation, and how it now gets implemented by Ofcom is very important. There is also the private Member’s Bill from the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister)—I think he became a Parliamentary Private Secretary overnight, so we hope there is still a good future for that private Member’s Bill. That is one part of what is going on. I also mentioned Australia, where there is a ban of some type to come in.

The school phones ban also plays a part. To be clear, it is not a ban on children carrying a mobile phone of any sort, brand or functionality to and from home and school. Nor does it preclude children who need to use a phone because of special educational needs, medical conditions, monitoring requirements or some other reasons from carrying one. Those things can be determined locally by the school. It is not a panacea—far from it—but it will make a difference in schools.

It is often said that mobile phones are already banned in the vast majority of schools, so a ban is not needed and will not have any effect. That is true to an extent. There are virtually no schools without policy. Clearly no one is allowed to whip out a phone and make a call in the middle of a maths lesson—in fact, we never actually see teenagers use a phone to make a call—and there are going to be some rules to some extent. In the Internet Matters survey, 43% of schools reported having an “out of sight” policy. It is true that lots of schools allow phone use in breaks and at lunch—I know that because I visited a lot of schools where kids had been using their phones in breaks and at lunch.

There is sometimes a bit of a hierarchy in how people assess these bans. One gets a slightly different assessment of the situation from Ministers, headteachers, classroom teachers and kids. According to the Youth Endowment Fund survey, which is huge—I think it surveys 7,500 13 to 17-year-olds—53% of children said they used mobile phones in break times, and one in six said they used their phone in lessons.

Having a national policy does not solve everything—kids still break rules sometimes—but it does make it easier for everyone. As I say, it does not preclude carrying a phone to and from school, and it does not preclude children with whatever additional needs from carrying them, but it supports leaders and teachers in what they are doing. It also makes it clear to parents that they cannot contact children during the school day—they can, but they do so through the school office, just as would have been the case in the old days. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston said, a national policy would set a firm norm.

More widely, the Government will have to return again and again to all the issues around online safety, social media use and the use of electronics, and they must study the mental health aspects in more detail. However, I suggest that, pending proof—the smoking example speaks to this—it is necessary to take a precautionary approach. When we put things in the hands of children, we tend not to say, “Let’s wait to see if it’s dangerous”; we test them first to make sure they are safe. I hope also that the Minister can speak with colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care about the provision of more NHS guidance on safe and reasonable levels of mobile phone use for children’s early brain development.

I have gone on a long time, and much longer than I anticipated. I will stop there.

Amanda Martin (Labour, Portsmouth North)

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments.

We have spent a great deal of time in Committee hearing from Opposition Members about autonomy: headteachers’ autonomy, school autonomy, and school leaders knowing exactly what is best for their pupils and communities. Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states that the policy

“is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate”,

but that means that the school leader could choose not to ban mobile phones for anybody in their school; there are exemptions, and they could decide that that is what they need. But that was not what I was going to talk about.

The use of mobile phones in schools should be decided at school level. It should reflect school values, processes and procedures, and not be decided in a directive or legislation from Government. Deciding it at school level would allow for the reasonable use of phones and technology, and it would allow for a balanced approach to technology. It could involve the school community in a discussion about what the phones and technology are being used for—a simple ban would not do that—and could include conversations about digital wellness and promoting healthier relationships, both offline and online, and a healthy approach to using technology at school, in the workplace and in the wider world. If we banned kids from using phones in school, we probably should ban people in their offices and in meetings from using them, because they do not pay attention either. Given how often we look up and see people not even bothering, how on earth can children learn while using mobile phones and technology in a measured and supportive way?

I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the Birmingham study from February, which was mentioned previously. It found that banning smartphones in schools did not directly improve student academic performance or mental health. However, that research indicated that excessive phone use correlates with negative outcomes, yet there were no significant differences between the kids who had bans in their school and those who did not. It is about the wider picture, which has been talked about. I also draw the Committee’s attention to a survey conducted in November 2024 of over 1,000 teachers. One in five believed that a school-wide ban would not improve the relationships and attainment levels of children, and 41% agreed that they used smartphones as a teaching tool within their classrooms.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

The hon. Lady talks about the use of pupils’ own smartphones as a teaching tool in class. Does she have any worries about the equity of that? What happens to the kids who do not have smartphones in those situations?

Amanda Martin (Labour, Portsmouth North)

That is a good point. Although we have to resource our schools properly to ensure appropriate iPads and computers that can be used, we would not want the situation the hon. Member described to continue either. We must ensure that schools are resourced.

We have talked about disruption in classrooms, and 20% of teachers said that the unauthorised use of mobile phones was one of the main causes. However, chatter and not sitting still accounted for 80% and 75% respectively, and disrespect to other pupils was much higher than the use of mobile phones. When asked whether a whole-school ban would improve learning, 18% felt that it would, but actually 57% felt that a class size reduction would improve behaviour much more. We need to give our schools the autonomy to have that conversation with their communities and to involve their students. We have student councils and we have parent groups, and we must involve them in the conversations on mobile phone use in schools so that we can teach digital wellness now and for the future.

Catherine Atkinson (Labour, Derby North)

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 (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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.

More broadly, given the points made by a number of Members, I stress that everyone—including parents, schools and providers—is responsible for ensuring that children are aware of the importance of internet safety. With the use of mobile phones already subject to restrictions in most schools, it is outside of school that children are using those devices and spending time online. That is why we want to encourage schools to consult with and build support from parents to develop a policy that works in context and keeps children and young people safe.

Moreover, we can do more to protect children and young people from risk of harm online and on social media when they walk out of the school gates. We have been clear as a Government that our priority is the effective implementation of the Online Safety Act, so that children can benefit from its wide-ranging protections as soon as possible—and be able to safely benefit from technological advances for years to come. I therefore recommend that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston withdraw the new clause.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

We have had an important and interesting debate, and we have heard a mix of arguments—some better than others, I think. The argument about drafting does not hold water. Subsection (2)(a) talks about students, subsection (4) talks about pupils, and subsection (2)(b) would allow a policy to be implemented in a sensible way. If Members do not agree with the new clause, they can just say so, rather than find lawyerly arguments against it.

However, there were some good points made. More than one thing can be a problem at a time, and this new clause is not the silver bullet. There are lots of problems with smartphone use outside of schools, as well as other things on top of that that we need to do. That is why I talked about this as a beachhead—as the first thing we should do. It is interesting that all over the world things are changing. In the US, the overwhelming majority of states either already have a ban or are on their way legislatively to getting one. The US is ground zero for a lot of these problems, and it is interesting that it is moving to take decisive action. I think we will, too.

For Ministers, there will always be a load of people who want to come to them and say that, “It’s all very complicated—I have been working with the industry,” “It’s correlation not causation,” or, “We should just let be.” There are things in the Bill where the Opposition have been critical of the Government for being more directive than we think is appropriate for the subject. On this issue, however, we think the subject is so important. In this House, we now all talk constantly about the mental health crisis among young people—it is such a big thing. It seems to be pretty incontrovertible that one of the main causes of that is the rise of the smartphone-based childhood. This provision could be an important first step towards tackling that massive national crisis.

I hope that at some point Ministers will think again about the provision when they have more time to reflect. The guidance on its own is not working; we can see from the data that it is not changing things enough. That is why I will press the new clause to a Division.

New Clause 49 - Report on behaviour in schools

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield South East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 70—Appointment of Anti-Bullying Leads—

“In section 89 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Determination by head teacher of behaviour policy), after subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) For the purposes of preventing bullying under subsection (1)(b), the head teacher of a relevant school in England must appoint a member of staff to be the school’s Anti-Bullying Lead.

(2C) The Anti-Bullying Lead will have responsibility for developing the school’s anti-bullying strategy, which must—

(a) outline the steps which will be taken by the school to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils, particularly in relation to those pupils with protected characteristics;

(b) state how incidences of bullying are to be recorded and acted upon by the school; and

(c) detail the training relating to bullying awareness and prevention which will be made available to school staff.””

This new clause would require headteachers to appoint Anti-Bullying Leads, to lead on the development of anti-bullying strategies.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

We have a run of new clauses here—49, 50 and 51—and I will speak about them at the appropriate moment. I will not move new clause 50 in the interests of time. During lockdown a lot of parents, including me, gained an even greater respect for the teaching profession, yet we do not treat teachers like other professionals. We do not expect doctors or lawyers to put up with the kind of abuse that is sadly still far too common for schoolteachers. The Bill does many things, some of them good, but as an editorial in the TES pointed out, it is strangely silent on discipline and the right of teachers and pupils to have a safe place to work. To fix that, we have tabled these new clauses, which can be taken together.

The first concerns properly managing and measuring the situation. What gets measured gets managed, but at the moment we have far too little data on the state of discipline in our schools and in alternative provision. That is why new clause 49 provides for an annual report, and it locks in the current national behaviour survey, which is so important and creates wider and regular reporting of Government action on this subject. Endless polls show that it is one of the top issues facing teachers. It is one of the most important things to them, and we know that it drives good people out of this most valuable profession.

New clause 50, which I will not move today, would create an annual report on alternative provision for exactly the same reason, as well as for reasons concerning achievement and behaviour in AP. I will speak about new clause 51 at the appropriate moment, but it is about encouraging Ministers to go further on the discipline agenda, which I know they want to do. It is so vital to academic achievement in our schools, but it is also vital to a decent childhood, to not having to live in fear and to an orderly society.

Ellie Chowns (Green, North Herefordshire)

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 (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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 (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Stephen Morgan (Labour, Portsmouth South)

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.

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield South East)

I thank the Minister for his kind words.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I echo those words, Mr Betts, and I thank the Minister for them.

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s positive comments about the National Behaviour Survey, though we have a paucity of data about this most vital issue, and it would be better to go much further. I also agree with the comments made by the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, who spoke so powerfully about the impact of bullying. One can never be too much on that absolutely vital issue. We will not press the new clause today, but we look to the Government to go beyond what already exists, and at least to maintain what exists now. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 51 - Duty for schools to report acts of violence against staff to the police

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

This new clause is a continuation of the debate we were just having. It is time to ensure that all acts and threats of violence against teachers are reported to the police. It is very clear from the drafting of the clause that we are not looking to criminalise children, but we should not expect teachers to suck up abuse that we would never expect other professionals to. If we log what is going on, we have a chance of avoiding things that can escalate over time.

At the moment in Scotland, members of NASUWT are taking industrial action because of the failure of authorities to create discipline. The unions say that teachers

“report being told at debriefing meetings that their lessons are ‘not fun or engaging enough’”

That is absolutely extraordinary. NASUWT notes:

“A culture where there are no consequences for poor behaviour is not setting up pupils well for adult life and fails the employers’ duty of care towards its staff”.

It also says:

“The wholesale adoption of the restorative approach to pupil discipline has definitely been a problem”.

Mike Corbett of NASUWT said:

“You can’t offer a quiet chat and no serious consequences for this level of disruptive behaviour.”

We find ourselves, on this matter, in total agreement with the teaching unions and their wise words on this subject. In England, a Channel 4 exposé sadly showed the incredible extent of the problem and why we need to do far more to address it.

We want those who would lift their hands to a teacher and engage in an act of violence, intimidation or threat to know that it will absolutely be reported to the police. It is sometimes good to make a credible pre-commitment to things, and people need to know it is never acceptable to do those things. They need to know that there will be automatic consequences and that they should not expect that people will just turn the other cheek. People who are trying to help them—dedicating their lives to helping them—should not be used as punch bags. That is only one of the things we need to do, but this new clause is about resetting expectations around behaviour. If the Government will not support the new clause as drafted, we hope that they will support some version of it.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I agree with the sentiments behind the new clause. Any form of violence in school is completely and utterly unacceptable and should not be tolerated. By law, schools must have a behaviour policy. In the most serious cases, suspensions and permanent exclusion may be necessary to ensure that teachers and pupils are protected from disruption.

Schools or trusts as employers already have a statutory duty, outlined in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of school staff at work. Where violence is involved on school premises, schools should take immediate and appropriate action. Should the incident constitute a potential criminal offence, it is for the school as an employer to consider involving the police, having followed the advice contained in the “When to call the police” guidance for schools and colleges by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, written in partnership with the Department for Education and the Home Office.

There are already appropriate provisions and guidance for schools to prevent and respond to violence on their premises. That includes guidance on when to involve the police, so the new clause is likely to impose an additional administrative burden on school leaders. Clearly, important points have been made, but, on the basis I have outlined, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the clause.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiment—of course she wants only the right thing for pupils and teachers. However, I will push the new clause to a vote, because we want to think about how we can go further on all these things to create the safe workplace that both teachers and pupils deserve.

In another part of the forest, there is an argument about non-crime hate incidents and logging them. The arguments made by the Government about logging them is that one thing leads to another. As I said before, we do not wish to criminalise children, but logging where actual acts of violence are taking place is an important resource for the police and other social services. We think that something along those lines would be useful, and I am keen to push this to a vote, but I know the Minister will think about everything extra that she can do to try to create a safe workplace.

New Clause 55 - Independent review in relation to orders under section 87(3)(b) of the Education Act 2002

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

The Government are obviously reviewing the national curriculum at the moment. During our earlier debates in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out that control of the national curriculum is an incredible power, yet, to date, it has operated really on precedent, custom, tradition and everyone being reasonable. This new clause aims to formalise that process a bit more.

At the moment, of course, the Government are taking advice from an independent review—very sensibly—but, legally, they do not actually have to take account of that; they could make whatever decision they wanted. In another Bill—the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill—the Government are centralising control over a whole bunch of stuff about qualifications and standards.

This new clause just sets up, for the first time, a proper process to formalise how the national curriculum is revised. It is an incredibly strong power and yet it is one that has operated—in one sense, nobly—on the assumption of everyone just behaving reasonably and people being “good chaps”, as it were, in the old parlance. This measure would put an actual formal legal process around such hugely important changes.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

The current system for reviewing the curriculum works well, as the ongoing independent curriculum and assessment review shows, and has stood the test of time for successive Governments. The legislation gives Ministers the flexibility to review and develop the curriculum in the most appropriate way for the circumstances of the time, while requiring them to consult, and to provide Parliament with appropriate levels of scrutiny.

Requiring the creation of new organisations and processes is rarely the best way to improve outcomes. The proposed system would be inflexible and bureaucratic rather than helpful. New clause 55 would mean that, following any review of whether to change the national curriculum, such as through our curriculum and assessment review, the Secretary of State would have to set up another independent review to advise how to change the programmes of study.

Also, by requiring a positive, rather than negative, resolution of changes, and of any changes beyond the review’s recommendations, this measure could add unnecessary delays and uncertainty for teachers about what was going to be changed in the curriculum and when. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

While our concerns remain, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 58 - Right to review school curriculum material

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

Over recent years, we have been in an absolutely extraordinary situation. Very controversial materials from various third party private providers have been used in RSE—relationships and sex education—lessons, yet parents have been denied access to the materials that are being used to teach their children, even though it is them paying, as taxpayers, and it is their children who are being exposed to these materials. That is obviously unacceptable.

Various private providers of this material, including for-profit companies, have tried to hide behind copyright law, or have tried to make parents sign agreements, such as that they can see the materials, but only on the strict conditions that they do not quote from them or talk about them, effectively crippling and ending public debate about them. Parents need to see, and to be able to act upon what they see, including discussing it in public and making formal complaints. That requires having a copy of the material and being able to refer to it openly.

An important case brought by the campaign group “No Secret Lessons” may establish such rights, but, despite a hearing five months ago, we are still—strangely—awaiting a verdict in its case. I pay tribute to its work in trying to bring back some common sense here.

New clause 58 seeks to put into statute the right to have access to the materials that are being used to educate our children about controversial subjects. That, itself, should not be a controversial idea. The intent is that this right, in primary legislation, would cut through the issues around copyright and prevent the industry from trying to stop public discussion that actually needs to happen.

The context is that the Government’s response to the consultation on gender-questioning children and RSE is long overdue, and we look forward to hearing the outcome of those processes soon. I hope that the Minister may be able to say some more about when we can expect to see those things.

However, whatever the outcome of those reviews, I hope that we can agree on an important principle: that parents should be allowed to know what their children are being taught, and that there should be no secret lessons.

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I wish to speak briefly about the new clause, mainly to test the waters with the hon. Gentleman who tabled it. Does he, like me, have concerns that, if parents and carers are able to access teaching materials, they may meet with the teachers who drew up the materials and raise significant concerns, which may not always be well founded?

For instance, a teacher I spoke with recently raised concerns about a parent who had demanded to see their teaching materials on the basis that they cited Marcus Rashford as an example of somebody campaigning for social justice, which the parent was deeply concerned about. The teacher raised with me their concern that the conversation with the parent had had a chilling or stifling effect on their willingness to cite Marcus Rashford as a social justice hero in the future.

Would it not be a better way forward for teachers to be held accountable for their materials by the headteacher and the school’s governing body? That would protect parents or guardians from the minority of parents or carers who raise concerns based on unfounded reasons that have a wider impact on the teaching that is delivered.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way so that I can directly answer the question he posed to me. The problem is not schools, which are bound by freedom of information, but a bunch of private for-profit providers that are inappropriately hiding behind copyright law to deny people the right to even see what is being taught. Different people can have different opinions on what is being taught—that is reasonable in a democracy, and it is important that we have sensibly founded conversations and all those things—but does the hon. Member agree that, given that a parent is paying for their kid’s education, they should have the right to see what they are being taught?

Tom Hayes (Labour, Bournemouth East)

I welcome that clarification. I continue to have concerns, because whether or not somebody is paying for their child’s education—I would obviously wish that they were not paying—I still think it is important to have quality education and critical thinking and to potentially use inspirational figures and history to make points. That goes across all types of educational provider, so my concern remains. Thinking back to the conversation I had recently with a teacher, the last thing I want is for them to go into a classroom feeling wary or in any way diminished in their ability to freely and critically educate and provide children with access to all kinds of information, and not just narrow viewpoints.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

It is right that parents and carers should be able to access and understand what their child is taught at school, so that they can continue to support their child’s learning at home and answer questions. However, that should be achieved in a way that does not increase school and teacher workload.

The new clause could require schools to maintain and collate a substantial number of materials across various platforms, covering all subjects and school years, down to every single worksheet, presentation, planning document or text. That is not necessary. There are already many ways in which parents can engage with their child’s curriculum that would not add to teacher workload. The national curriculum, which will be taught in academies and maintained schools, is published on gov.uk. Maintained schools and academies are required to publish details of how a parent can access further information about the school’s curriculum.

Schools must also have a written policy for relationships and sex education, which must be developed in consultation with parents. The statutory guidance is clear that this should include providing examples of the resources they intend to use, to reassure parents and enable them to continue conversations at home. We will make sure that that is reinforced when we update the guidance. Finally, parents can be reassured that Ofsted reviews curriculum materials to ensure that they support pupils to achieve good outcomes.

The new clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of a widespread problem that would justify the extra burden and bureaucracy it would create for schools. If parents have concerns, there are ways of dealing with them. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

I listened to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East and, broadly speaking, agree with everything he said. I am absolutely in favour of a balanced diet and the free exchange of different ideas, and nothing we are proposing in any way speaks against that. What we propose is in fact a way to ensure that that happens, by allowing parents to see what their children are being taught.

I find myself out of sympathy with the Minister’s argument that this is somehow a massive bureaucratic requirement. With state schools, there is FOI, so parents are able to access these materials. The problem has come with private providers using copyright law to escape the same transparency that we expect of schools normally, which is not right.

I do not accept that the new clause would require people to have 20 years-worth of materials. It simply states that

“a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum”.

That is in the present tense, so this is not some huge bureaucratic burden. The school has the materials, and the only question is whether the parents can see them, take them away and talk about them to other people.

At the moment, free debate on such things is being stifled, and a hugely important principle is being denied to people. We have a right to see what our kids are being taught in schools. For that reason, we will press the new clause to a vote.

New Clause 59 - Kinship care leave

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

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

Clive Betts (Labour, Sheffield South East)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

The end is in sight for all of us—we are on to the last column of the selection list. I will speak to new clauses 59 to 62, which are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. The new clauses all refer to support for kinship carers and children growing up in kinship care.

In clauses 5 and 6 in part 1 of the Bill, we discussed and agreed a number of encouraging provisions on defining kinship carers, setting out the support they are eligible for and providing additional educational support for the subset of children growing up in kinship care. However, what we have already agreed in Committee falls far short of the ambition that I heard the Secretary of State herself set out at a reception for kinship carers just a couple of months back.

At that reception, the right hon. Lady—unusually for a Secretary of State—called on campaigners and policymakers to keep pushing her. I think that that was in order to give her the clout in Government to go further. The four new clauses seek to do just that, and I hope Ministers will receive them in that spirit.

New clause 59 would ensure that kinship carers are entitled to paid employment leave. New clause 60 would put into statute an entitlement to an allowance on a par with that for foster carers. New clause 61 would extend pupil premium plus to all children in kinship care, based on the definition the Committee has agreed. Finally, new clause 62 would prioritise those same children for school admissions.

Kinship carers are unsung heroes, often stepping up at no notice to look after a child they are related to or know, because the parents can no longer do so. In oral evidence, Jacky Tiotto of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service told us that

“the kinship carer’s life will not continue in the way it had before, in terms of their ability to work, maybe, or where they live.

We know that local authorities are under huge resource pressure, so there is going to have to be something a bit stronger to encourage people to become carers, whether that is related to housing or the cost of looking after those children. People will want to do the right thing, but if you already have three kids of your own that becomes tricky.”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 34, Q78.]

Time and again, we hear from kinship carers that they want to do the right thing—out of love for those family members—but financial and other barriers often stand in their way. One survey revealed that 45% of kinship carers give up work, and a similar number have to reduce their hours permanently, putting financial strain on the family. Those carers are disproportionately women and are over-represented in healthcare, education and social care, which simply exacerbates our workforce crisis in public services. Extending paid employment leave would enable more people to step up and provide a stable, loving home.

On allowances, there are not just long-term savings to be made in terms of the well-evidenced better health and education outcomes for children; there are also immediate cost savings to be had for the taxpayer. Compared to the cost of the alternative—local authority care—the saving is approximately £35,000 a year. Every child we manage to divert from local authority care into kinship care can deliver that saving for the taxpayer immediately. Surely Ministers can tempt their colleagues in the Treasury with that immediate spend-to-save argument?

In Kinship’s 2022 “Cost of Loving” survey of more than 1,000 kinship carers, one third said they may not be able to continue caring for their child as a result of financial pressures. I spoke to one kinship carer in my borough who had avoided putting the heating on and skipped all sorts of things, including food for herself, so that she could put enough food on the table for her grandson. Her story is far too common. A national, non-means-tested allowance would end the system of patchy means-tested allowances that reflect the postcode lottery of support that councils can afford to provide.

Ministers have already recognised in the Bill the need for additional educational support for children in kinship care. Why are we not treating all children equally, so that it is not just those who were previously looked after who are entitled to additional pupil premium funding or priority admissions? The trauma and needs of children in kinship care are often similar to those of children who were previously looked after. We should extend the same provisions to all children in kinship care.

I know that Ministers understand the sacrifices that kinship carers make and the trauma that children in kinship care have been through. The Schools Minister herself headed up a parliamentary taskforce on kinship in the last Parliament, and she was very active in the all-party parliamentary group on kinship care. I know that she is very familiar with these issues, and I hope she is sympathetic to the call in these new clauses. I hope to hear something positive and that Ministers—even if, as we know, they never accept Opposition new clauses in a Bill Committee—will seek to address these inequalities and support these unsung heroes, kinship carers, and the children they look after.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I thank the hon. Members for Twickenham and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for these new clauses. I want to start by emphasising how much I value kinship carers, who come forward to provide loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. We absolutely recognise the challenge that many kinship carers face in continuing to work while dealing with the pressures of raising a child unexpectedly.

The support offered by the Government to kinship carers is a floor, not a ceiling, and we encourage employers to go further, where they can. One example of that is the Department for Education, which employs more than 7,500 public sector workers and has recently joined a small number of private sector employers, including Card Factory, Tesco and John Lewis, in offering a paid leave entitlement to all eligible staff who become kinship carers.

Employed kinship carers may already benefit from a number of workplace employment rights that are designed to support employees in balancing work alongside caring responsibilities. Those rights include a day one right to time off for dependants, which provides a reasonable amount of unpaid time off to deal with an unexpected or sudden emergency involving a child or dependant, and to put care arrangements in place. There is also 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. An employee may not automatically have parental responsibility as a result of being a kinship carer, but may do if they have acquired parental responsibility through, for example, a special guardianship order. If they are looking after a child who is disabled or who lives with a long-term health condition, they would also be entitled to carer’s leave, which would allow them to take up to a week’s leave in a 12-month period.

All employees also have a right to request flexible working from day one of employment. The Government will make flexibility the default, except where it is not feasible, through measures in 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. Work is already under way on planning for its delivery.

On new clause 60, again, I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss financial support for kinship carers. In October 2024, the Government announced £40 million of new funding for a kinship financial allowance pilot, which will test the impact of financial support for kinship carers. This is the single biggest investment made by Government in kinship care to date. It could transform the lives of vulnerable children who can no longer live at home by allowing them to grow up with their families and communities, reducing the disruption in their early years so that they can focus on schooling and building friendships. The pilot will provide a weekly financial allowance to kinship carers to support them with the additional costs incurred when taking on parental responsibility for a child.

Our ambition is that all kinship carers get the support they need to care for their children and to help them thrive, but it is important that we build the evidence first to find out how best to deliver that financial support. Decisions about future roll-out will be informed by the findings of the evaluation. The Government will confirm the eligible cohort for the pilot as well as the participating local authorities soon, and we expect the pilot to go live in autumn 2025.

New clauses 61 and 62 would extend pupil premium eligibility to children living in kinship care, and provide those children admissions in preference to other children, in the same way as children who are or were looked after by a local authority in England are currently given preference. We are providing over £2.9 billion of pupil premium funding to improve the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils in England, including looked-after and previously looked-after children. Pupil premium is not a personal budget for individual pupils, and schools do not have to spend the funding so that it solely benefits pupils who meet the criteria. Schools can direct funding where the need is greatest, including to pupils with other identified needs, such as children in kinship care. They can also use pupil premium on whole-class approaches that will benefit all pupils, such as high-quality teaching. There are no plans to change the pupil premium eligibility at present. However, we will continue to keep it under review to ensure that the support is targeted at those who need it most.

All state-funded, non-selective schools are required to provide the highest priority in their admissions over-subscription criteria to looked-after and previously looked-after children. Those children are among the most vulnerable in our society, and wherever possible, they should be admitted to the school that is best able to meet their needs. Some children in kinship care may share some of those characteristics. Indeed, many children in kinship care may already be eligible for the highest priority for school admission—for example, where a child is looked after by their local authority and then fostered by a kinship carer, or where they were previously looked after. We think that this approach is the best way of ensuring that the most vulnerable pupils of this cohort, who would benefit most from priority admissions, are able to access the school place that is right for them.

It is also worth noting that the school admissions code provides another protection to children in formal kinship care, irrespective of whether they have spent time in local authority care. The admissions code ensures that such children are eligible to be secured a school place through the fair access protocol, which is the local mechanism for ensuring that those struggling to secure a school place via the usual admissions processes are found one.

Given those existing protections, we do not consider it necessary at this time to extend the existing priority for looked-after and previously looked-after children in England to include all children in kinship care. We are also extending local authorities’ statutory duties to include promoting the educational achievement of all children living in kinship care within the meaning of new section 22I(1) of the Children Act 1989, which will be inserted by the Bill. We will also extend the duty of virtual school heads to provide information and advice to include all children living with a special guardian or under a child arrangement order where the child is living with a kinship carer within the meaning of new section 22I(6) of the 1989 Act. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Twickenham not to press the new clauses.

Munira Wilson (Liberal Democrat, Twickenham)

I thank the Minister for her response. It is obviously disappointing that Ministers will not go further, particularly on allowances. The pilots that were set out in a tiny number of local authorities with a very small subset of kinship carers were not ambitious enough. On that basis, I would like to press new clause 60 on allowances to a vote, but I am happy to leave the others. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

New Clause 60 - Kinship care allowance

New Clause 63 - Exemption from education legislation for the purpose of raising educational standards

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

As Ministers look at new clause 63, they may think it seems strangely familiar, and I must confess that it is a piece of stolen intellectual property. As you will recognise, Mr Betts, it is a rip-off of new Labour’s Education Act 2002. Funnily enough, it is a part of that Act that was passed as legislation but never commenced. It is a good thing in itself, as it enables Ministers to set up areas of innovation in our schools, and it is a part of a wider good thing: the spirit of innovation and reform in our schools of the early Blair years, which we want Ministers to return to.

In the health service, there has been a 40-year discussion about why innovation is so hard and why innovations do not spread in the NHS. In schools, although the situation is not perfect, it is definitely better because of parental choice and the reforms under Lord Baker, Lord Adonis, the coalition and beyond. I commend to all members of the Committee Lord Adonis’s superb book “Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools”, which brilliantly captures the spirit of that era and what that Government were trying to achieve.

Although we think this would be a useful power, our purpose of drawing attention to it is as much about the spirit of what we want to see in our schools. There have been some changes of tone from Ministers during the course of this Bill Committee, and we hope we can persuade them to go further in the same direction. That is why we have discussed this new clause, but we will not be pressing it to a vote.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

Things really can only get better—[Laughter.]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the existing provision in part 1 of the Education Act 2002, and his open admission that the new clause draws its inspiration from it. That Act, in the early days of academies, introduced powers to facilitate innovation that were designed to encourage schools to consider barriers to raising standards for their pupils in their particular circumstances, and to explore innovative options that might not previously have been considered. It provided a means of promoting school freedoms and flexibilities, and was an effective strategic tool that enabled schools, local authorities and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, as it was, to test new ideas. It encouraged schools and local authorities to re-examine their existing practices and make use of freedoms and flexibilities that they already had. It was not designed to allow long-term flexibility, as this new clause is; rather any exemption is time limited.

The Act provoked consideration of real and perceived barriers to raising standards, and many schools discovered that not all innovative ideas require an exemption from legislation, because the necessary freedoms and flexibilities already exist. Annual reporting shows that only 32 orders were made between 2002 and 2010 using the power. We understand that the last order under the power was made in 2012. Since then, schools and trusts have innovated and tested ideas without the 2002 powers being necessary or used. Evidence-based practice and innovation is now the norm in many of our schools and trusts. There is a range of programmes, such as curricular hubs, behaviour hubs and teaching schools, geared to driving schools towards spreading evidence-based practice, and away from doing other things.

The Department works closely with the Education Endowment Foundation, which is independent from Government and trusted by the sector, to understand which interventions and approaches are most effective in terms of school improvement and raising attainment, and to provide guidance and support to schools on that. As part of that, it carries out trials of new approaches that look to have a high potential to improve outcomes. Where a new and innovative practice works, we want schools to be able to implement it. For example, based on robust EEF evidence of impact, programmes such as embedding formative assessments and mathematics mastery are being provided to the sector at greater scale, supported by Department for Education funding that subsidises the cost of participation.

The Bill guarantees a core provision for all children. Through it, we are providing a floor, not a ceiling, and the measures do not prevent schools and trusts from innovating and adapting above that framework. Our vision for driving high and rising standards centres on expert teaching and leadership in a system with wide freedoms, high support and high challenge, backed up by the removal of barriers, so that every child can achieve and thrive. We believe that more of the flexibility currently offered to academies should be offered to all schools, and we are working with teachers, leaders and the sector to design our wider reforms. If attempts to innovate are prevented by legislation, we want to hear about it, because we want all children to benefit from the best the system has to offer. On that basis, I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw his new clause.

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

It is nice to hear the Minister praising the resources that are there for school-led improvement, so we hope that Ministers will look again at the recent decision to cut or curtail things such as mathematics, physics, Latin, computing and the like. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

New Clause 64 - Pay and conditions of school support staff in England

Neil O'Brien (Conservative, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston)

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

The Minister just talked about the principle of having a floor, not a ceiling. Through our debates, we have now established that for teachers, but of course teachers are not a majority of the school workforce. The majority of the workforce are those who are sometimes called school support staff. These people are no less worthy than teachers of our praise and admiration. They fulfil all manner of roles, from the most essential to the most demanding.

Through this new clause, we ask that the same principles that are to be applied to teachers’ pay—we hope that those will translate into reality—should apply to the majority of school staff: school support staff. Although trust leaders anticipated the school support staff negotiating body, some were surprised about the proposal for it to cut across academy funding arrangements, and not all had anticipated that it would apply to them. A number have said to me that they will be very concerned if their freedoms to pay more to retain the best school support staff were, in effect, taken away from them, because that would have a devastating effect on their schools.

Legislation on this issue is being considered in another place, but I hope that we can establish that Ministers will maintain that vital freedom to pay more, particularly in high-demand areas, to retain good people in our schools. A person does not have to be a teacher to play a crucial part in the education of our children, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We hope that the same principles that Ministers say will apply to teachers can also be established for the rest of the school workforce.

Catherine McKinnell (Labour, Newcastle upon Tyne North)

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s celebration of school support staff. He is absolutely right: they are the beating heart of schools up and down the country. For that very reason, provisions to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body are currently going through Parliament as part of the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill’s clause 30 and schedule 3, which pertain to the SSSNB, were debated in Committee in the House of Commons on 17 December 2024, and the Bill is about to move to Report stage in the House. Any amendments relating to the school support staff negotiating body should therefore be considered as part of the Employment Rights Bill, and the issues that the hon. Gentleman outlined will be considered as part of the work of the school support staff negotiating body. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.