2nd reading, Programme motion, Money resolution in the Commons
Second Reading of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill in the Commons, where MPs debated safeguarding and care reforms alongside a contested rollback of academy freedoms and a Conservative reasoned amendment calling for a national grooming-gangs inquiry.
TPThis is a child-centred Bill, and it starts with safety: a new duty for safeguarding partners to work with education, multi-agency child protection teams, a unique identifier so no child falls through the cracks, a compulsory register of children not in school, and local-authority consent to home-educate a child on a child protection plan. No more lessons learned and no more foot-dragging — a vote against this Bill is a vote against the safety of our children.I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. In the week in which we return to this House and our children return to school, I am proud to be the Secretary of State for Education in a truly child-centred Government. The actions I take and the decisions I make are always in pursuit of what is best for the children of this country, and that starts with keeping them safe. After little more than six months in power, we are delivering the change that is many years overdue. No more lessons learned, no more paper pushing and no more foot dragging: it is time for Government to act, and this Government will act with the urgency that our children deserve and our country demands. This Bill puts forward bold new measures to keep children safe. These include a new legal obligation for safeguarding partners to work hand in hand with education, because it is often teachers who first see the signs of abuse and neglect; a new duty to establish multi-agency child protection teams, because keeping children safe is everyone’s business; a new power to put in place a unique identifier for children, sharing information so that no child falls through the cracks; a new compulsory register of children not in school in every area of England, because if children are not in school, we need to know where they are; and a new requirement for local authority consent for parents to home-educate their children if they are on a child protection plan or subject to child protection inquiries. I respect parents’ rights to make choices about their child’s education, but children’s safety must always come first, and under this Government, their safety will always come first. Let us be crystal clear: a vote against this Bill today is a vote against the safety of our children, against their childhoods and against their futures. Today, Conservative MPs have a choice: they can choose to back measures to protect children, or they can choose to chase headlines. They can choose to transform the lives o…
Tony Blair, Lord Adonis and the last Conservative Government built the academy system that transformed English education. Why dismantle decades of cross-party work and impose a gross socialist uniformity that will destroy the progress we have made?The Secretary of State has mentioned previous generations of politicians, and all of us in this House must recognise that we follow in the footsteps of giants. Tony Blair, Lord Adonis and others created the academy system that was built on under the last Conservative Government and brought about a transformation of English education. Why does the Secretary of State want to dismantle decades of work by Members across this House and bring about a gross socialist uniformity that will destroy the progress that has been made?
- That's a mischaracterisation, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it — and he said nothing about child safety. The Leader of the Opposition's wrecking amendment would block the very safeguarding measures the Conservatives say they want; if they want them, they should support them.
That is simply a mischaracterisation, and the right hon. Gentleman knows it. I will come on to the wider schools measures in this Bill later in my speech, but I note that he had nothing to say in his intervention about the safety of children and the measures we are discussing today. The wrecking amendment that the Leader of the Opposition has tabled would block the very important, very serious measures that the Conservatives have been telling us for days they want to see put in place. If they want those measures, they need to support them.
The only "uniformity" in this Bill is saving parents money on uniforms. Doesn't the fragmentation the last Government created leave young people falling through the gaps?The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) mentioned uniformity, but the only uniform measures I can see in the Bill are about saving parents money on uniform bills, which I think we can all welcome. Does the Secretary of State agree that the fragmentation of the school system created by the last Government led to many young people falling through the gaps, which is a huge issue?
- Collaboration across the system is crucial, and the Bill puts money back in parents' pockets through cheaper uniforms and breakfast clubs. We are mandating family group decision-making to keep children with family wherever it is safe, strengthening kinship care, and ending the shameful, exploitative profiteering by some private children's-home providers.
I will come on to the wider point of collaboration later in my speech. Collaboration across the school system is crucial, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the really important measures in the Bill that will put more money back in parents’ pockets by cutting the cost of school uniforms and bringing in breakfast clubs in primary schools across our country. This is child-centred legislation through and through—legislation that backs parents to do the best for their children. This Government are on a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity, driven forward by the plan for change unveiled by the Prime Minister in December. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is a huge step forward in that journey of reform, starting with child safety and building from there. It is an agenda for excellence—for safe and secure childhoods, because healthy and happy futures are built on nothing less. It is an agenda for excellence—for high and rising standards, because we will accept nothing less. It is an agenda for excellence—for a top-quality core offer in all of our schools, because parents demand nothing less. It is an agenda for excellence, because every child in this country deserves nothing less. That is what mission-led government is all about: child-centred action across Departments, between professions and through partnership. What matters about families is not the shape that they have, but the love they give. That is why, back in October, we announced the expansion of our work on fostering and on the trialling of a new kinship care allowance. It is why, in November, I came to this House to set out the biggest reform of children’s social care in a generation. It is why this Government then backed those changes with almost £300 million of investment, including the biggest ever investment in kinship care. It is why today I return to this House to cement our reforms in legislation, and to build a children’s social care system that is forward-looking, ex…
Will you evaluate the costs and benefits of investing in kinship care, so we cut not just the cost to the child but the cost to the taxpayer of expensive social care?I know that my right hon. Friend has a good head for numbers. Will she be doing some evaluation of the cost and benefits of investing in kinship care, so that we can reduce not just the cost to the child, but the cost to the taxpayer of expensive child social care?
- Yes. The Bill gives the Secretary of State a profit cap — and providers should take note, we will use it — plus a new financial oversight scheme so children always have somewhere to live if a provider collapses. We will also require every local authority to offer care leavers Staying Close support, and we are legislating for free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In my time with her on the Public Accounts Committee, I learned all too well the importance of those principles. The previous Government had work under way on understanding not just the benefits for children of staying close to those who can care for them best, but the spiralling costs and the need to take action. However, what we did not see from that Government was action, and that is why we are today making sure that we deliver better for our children. This Bill gives the Government, through the Secretary of State, the power to introduce a profit cap. Providers should take note: we will not hesitate to use this power to protect our most vulnerable children. Children must always have somewhere to live if private providers unexpectedly collapse. That is why this Bill introduces a new financial oversight scheme to increase transparency and strengthen forward planning. Children need support when they leave care, too, so the Bill will require all local authorities to offer care leavers emotional and practical support through the Staying Close programme—support in finding a great place to live, support in accessing the right services at the right time, and support in going on to live a healthy, happy life. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill provides the safe and secure foundation that all children need, and it builds on that foundation with urgent reform to all our schools, so that every child can achieve and thrive. That means schools being at the beating heart of their communities. That is why this Bill legislates for free breakfast clubs in every state-funded primary school, so that children get a welcoming, softer start to the day. It means schools where children come together to eat, learn and grow. It is good for attendance, good for attainment and good for behaviour.
I spent nearly 20 years teaching and saw food poverty wreck children's health and concentration. Welcome as primary breakfast clubs are, will you extend free breakfasts to secondary pupils and look again at free school lunches?Before my election, I spent nearly 20 years as a secondary school teacher, seeing at first hand the devastating effects of food poverty on children’s health, concentration and academic performance. I welcome the introduction of free breakfast clubs in primary schools, which will improve child health and learning outcomes in England, as seen in Wales. However, I urge further action to ensure that all children can thrive. Will the Government consider extending free breakfasts to secondary school students, and will consideration be given to access to free school lunches as well?
- We will keep further action under review through the child poverty taskforce. School uniform costs remain a heavy burden, so the Bill limits the number of branded items schools can require. The growing number of children in poverty is a source of national shame — and I will take no lectures from the Conservatives on life chances for working-class kids.
We will of course always keep further action under review. Through the child poverty taskforce, which I co-chair the Work and Pensions Secretary, we are considering what further action is required to make sure that families have more money in their pockets and can increase their income, and will take action. The growing number of children we have seen in poverty in our country is a source of national shame, and Conservative Members are responsible for that record. School uniform is important for building a sense of community, but too many families tell us that the cost remains a heavy burden, so our Bill limits the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have, putting money back in parents’ pockets. I want children in school and ready to learn, and that is why the Government’s plan for change sets a milestone for record numbers of five-year-olds reaching a good level of development. That is vital for giving every child the best start in life, but that is just the beginning, because I want high and rising standards for every child in every school. That is one of the surest ways that we can break the link between background and success for millions of children. That matters for every child, not just a lucky few. Life should not come down to luck. When Governments forget that, it is not the children of Conservative Members who lose out; it is working-class kids across our country. I know that better than most, and I will take no lectures from the Conservative party on what it takes to deliver better life chances for working-class kids.
Where school rolls are falling, especially in London, local authorities too often just close schools, which is damaging to children and communities. Clause 50 appears to give you powers to intervene — use them to downsize rather than close, so we keep community schools in the poorest boroughs.Could the Secretary of State comment on the falling rolls in some parts of this country, particularly London? Most local authorities unfortunately take the option of closing schools, which is very damaging to children and to local communities. Clause 50 appears to give her some powers of intervention, so we could perhaps instead downsize such schools, which would mean we kept the sense of them being community schools. That is so important, particularly in the poorest parts of many London boroughs. Can she give us some hope that there will be intervention, so that we keep community schools?
- Falling rolls are a real challenge: schools will have to work with councils on admissions and place planning, and we can use freed-up space for nurseries and for SEND provision so children attend school near home. Academies, introduced by Labour and expanded by the Conservatives, have raised standards and will keep doing so — but consensus must not stifle progress when one in four children still leaves primary school below standard and one in five is regularly absent.
A number of provisions in the Bill deal precisely with that challenge. We recognise that in London—but shortly this will be the case right across our country—there are challenges that come with falling rolls and making sure that we manage that properly. That will require schools to work with local councils, and to collaborate on managing admissions and place planning. It will also require decisions on how we make best use of the schools estate. That is why we have started encouraging primary schools to bid to open primary-based nurseries. The recent pilot programme for that has closed, and we were delighted to see so many applications. There is also an opportunity to think about using the space that will open up as a result of falling rolls to create additional provision for children with special educational needs and disabilities, so that they can go to a school much closer to home, and can go to school with their friends, in their local community. There has been welcome consensus that a high-quality state education should be the right of all children. That consensus has helped to ensure that innovations—from Ofsted to the national curriculum and academies—have stood the test of time, as Governments of all parties have driven reform. Academies, introduced by the last Labour Government and expanded by the Conservative party, have been instrumental in raising standards in our school system. They have delivered brilliant results, particularly for the most disadvantaged children, and they will continue their record of excellence under this Labour Government. However, this consensus must not stifle progress. While the Conservative party did make some progress over the past 14 years, it must reckon with its many failures. For example, one in four children leaves primary school without meeting the expected standard in reading, writing and maths. Tens of thousands of children do not secure good maths or English GCSEs. One in five children is regularly absent from school; t…
Children's mental health and wellbeing matter as much as the attainment statistics. Will you consider a national wellbeing measurement so we can actually track and improve it?The Secretary of State gives a lot of important statistics about how our children are developing, but their mental health and wellbeing is also important. Will she consider a national wellbeing measurement, so we can look at improving the wellbeing of our children?
- I share your concern about the growing number of deeply unhappy children and the rise in mental ill health, and too few get timely support. We are looking carefully at this.
I welcome the hon. Lady’s interest in this area, because I share her concern about the growing number of children in our country who are deeply unhappy, and the growing challenge of mental ill health and ensuring wellbeing. Far too many children do not receive access to timely support, and we are looking carefully at the issue that she identifies.
Breakfast clubs ease children into the day as well as feeding them. Won't they especially help younger children, and children with special educational needs, to be ready to learn?On children’s welfare and making sure that children start the school day in the best position to learn, I thank my right hon. Friend for bringing forward plans for breakfast clubs, so that children are ready to learn, not only because they have had a good meal, but because they are eased into the school day. Does she agree that that will help young children, and particularly kids with special educational needs, to learn?
- Yes — the evidence is clear that breakfast clubs help learning, behaviour and attainment as well as supporting parents. We begin the first pilot in April, including in schools serving children with SEND.
I agree with my hon. Friend. We have been led by the evidence on this, which is clear: this measure provides real support to parents at the start of the school day, but also delivers benefits for children’s learning, development, academic outcomes and behaviour. I am delighted that in April we will start rolling out the first pilot across schools, including schools serving children with special educational needs and disabilities, demonstrating the difference that this Labour Government will make to children’s life chances.
We all want the best outcomes for children, so why dismantle the infrastructure that delivered the improvements — specialist schools that attract the best teachers and tailor their curriculum to their pupils?I am sure that all Members of the House share the right hon. Lady’s objective of ensuring that children get the best education and have the best educational outcomes possible, but why is she dismantling the infrastructure that has delivered improvements? We have specialist schools, schools able to attract the best teachers, and schools able to tailor their curriculum to their pupils. Why does she want to dismantle that, if she wants to improve educational standards?
- That's just not the case — read the Bill. Every child deserves a top, qualified teacher and a high-quality national core offer, with the flexibility to innovate beyond it. We will restore the principle that every child benefits from the same core national curriculum, following the curriculum and assessment review, and every teacher will have completed statutory induction.
That is just not the case. I invite him to read the Bill, and I will come on to further measures that we are proposing. If we believe that every child deserves the best, that every classroom deserves a top teacher, and that every state school must be a great school, we cannot have excellence for some children and “just fine” or “okay” for the rest. We need all schools, working together, to deliver a national, high-quality core offer for all children, and to have the flexibility to innovate beyond that, so that parents know that wherever they live and whatever their local school, this Government are their child’s greatest champion. The best schools and trusts do incredible work, day in, day out, and I pay tribute to them. They are engines of innovation and civic leaders, and collaboration and improvement are central to their success. They prove that excellence already exists in the system, and it is time to spread it to all schools. That does not mean no competition. Competition can be healthy and a spur to excellence, but competition that encourages schools to hoard best practice or to export problems to others must be replaced by collaboration, and by schools working together to solve problems and put children first. I do not just mean collaboration within trusts. True collaboration also looks outward, so that there are schools driven by a shared purpose embedded in communities. Our vision twins that deep collaboration with healthy competition, so that every child in every school can benefit from best practice. The Bill brings reform. It demands high and rising standards across the board. We will restore the principle established by the noble Lord Baker, which is that every child will benefit from the same core national curriculum, following the curriculum and assessment review. The national curriculum was a Conservative achievement—I benefited from it—and this Labour Government will bring that legacy back for every child, giving every parent the confidence in stan…
When a school was failing, the Conservatives sent in new management to raise standards — and you want to dismantle that. I call it vandalism of our education system.I agree, as would all Members, that we want excellent standards for all schools. One idea that the Conservative Government had was that if a school was failing, new management would go in to increase standards, yet the Secretary of State wants to dismantle that. I would call that vandalism of our education system.
- No — we will intervene in failing schools, and sooner than you did in coasting ones, with regional improvement teams. Intervention may mean academisation or targeted support; what matters is what works, not fixating on structures. The Bill also ends the presumption that new schools must be academies, freeing councils to open the schools their communities need — including new special schools.
No; I invite the right hon. Lady to look carefully at the measures in the Bill. We will not hesitate to intervene in failing schools—indeed, we will intervene a lot sooner than the Conservatives did in schools that are coasting. Those schools that fall short of the statutory level of intervention will see regional improvement teams in their schools driving up standards. Where there is failure in the system, or where schools are not delivering the standards that every child deserves, we will act. That action will always be guided by what is best for the children in those schools. That may well be academisation, or it may be targeted intervention to drive change in practice and drive up standards, rather than to change the structure. The Bill will convert the duty to issue academy orders into the power to better deliver high and rising standards for all children, strengthening the range of ways through which failure can be tackled. There can be no excuse for fixating on structures and not on standards, because what matters is what works. The Bill ends the presumption that new schools should be academies, giving local authorities the freedom to deliver the schools that their communities need. That includes the ability to open new special schools—something that Members across the House know is a major challenge. This Government will work tirelessly to make sure that all children with special educational needs and disabilities receive the support they need to achieve and thrive. The previous Government left that in the “too difficult” box, but we will tackle it and ensure that all our children get a great education.
Our postbags are full of children not getting the mental health support they need. Will you put a mental health professional in all our schools, including special schools?The Secretary of State mentions special schools, and Members across the Chamber will have postbags filled with letters about far too many children who are not getting the support they need with their mental health, whether at special schools or otherwise. Will she consider putting a mental health professional in all our schools, including special schools, so that our children’s wellbeing can be improved, including their mental health?
- We are committed to rolling out mental health support across schools. SEND reform will be complex and take time — I invite the Liberal Democrats and others to work with us, because children with SEND have been failed for far too long and it is bankrupting councils.
I share the hon. Lady’s concern about the mental health challenges that many of our young people are experiencing, and we are committed to rolling out mental health support right across our schools. On the wider challenge of support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, I wish to make clear to the House that the reform we must engage in, and the change required, is complex and will take time. I invite Members across the House—the Liberal Democrats and others—to work with us on the change that is required to get this right, because for far too long children with special educational needs and disabilities have been failed by this system. Parents have lost trust and confidence in it, and it is bankrupting local councils.
Will you confirm that nothing in this Bill would result in a teacher in any school getting a pay cut?My right hon. Friend has spoken about academies and various other forms of schools. Will she confirm that nothing in the Bill would result in a teacher in any school getting a pay cut?
- I reiterate it clearly: the measures in this Bill and the changes to the schoolteachers' pay and conditions document will not cut teachers' pay.
My hon. Friend brings a wealth of experience as a teacher to the House. I know that teachers will want to hear what this will mean for their pay, so I reiterate that the measures in the Bill and the changes that we will bring forward to the schoolteachers’ pay and condition documents in the following remit will not cut teachers’ pay.
Free schools have driven up standards, so why was one of your first acts to threaten 44 free school projects built by parents and communities? Lift the uncertainty over them.The Secretary of State has spoken about her focus on standards. The free schools programme has driven up standards across the country, so why was one of her first actions to threaten 44 free school projects developed by parents, pupils and communities? Will she lift the veil of uncertainty over them?
- We are reviewing every school in the pipeline, but each needs a genuine case for need and value for the taxpayer, given the £22 billion black hole we inherited. On SEND, we will improve inclusion in mainstream schools while keeping specialist provision for the most complex needs, backed by new school report cards and RISE improvement teams.
We are looking carefully at all the schools in the pipeline, but we need to ensure that in every case there is a strong case for the need for the school and good value for the taxpayer. We have inherited an enormous challenge when it comes to the public finances, and we have had to make difficult decisions because of the £22 billion black hole that the hon. Member and his party left behind. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), who is chuntering away, was in Cabinet as Chief Secretary to the Treasury and responsible for overseeing all of that. Returning to support for children with special educational needs and disabilities, we will improve inclusivity in mainstream schools while ensuring that specialist provision can cater for those with the most complex needs. The changes that the Bill brings are underpinned by our wider reforms to drive improvement. New school report cards will give a full picture of a school’s performance. New RISE—regional improvement for standards and excellence—teams will draw on the excellence in our system and bring schools together to spread good practice and challenge underperformance. Accountability and inspection should be a galvanising force for improvement and a catalyst for quality, raising the floor of success, not lowering the ceiling of ambition. It should not drag schools down but lift children up. It is about them—it is always about them.
Local authorities have a crucial role in building collaboration and raising standards, but the last Government hollowed them out. Will you make sure they have the funding they need?I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s speech, and not least for the opportunity to raise standards for children with disability, children experiencing anxiety and children who have got care experience. Will she look at the role that local authorities can play in building collaboration and ensure that they have the funding they need? The last Government hollowed them out, yet they have a crucial role in raising standards and supporting schools.
- Yes — councils must work with schools, health services and other partners, and the Budget delivered extra investment. I want a much greater focus on early help and prevention, because that is where we make the biggest difference to children's lives.
I agree with my hon. Friend that we need to ensure that local authorities are working with schools, health services and other partners in their areas. Through the last Budget, we were able to deliver additional investment for our local councils. We want to see a much greater focus and priority on early help and early support and prevention, because we know that that is where we can make the biggest difference to children’s lives.
As a former academy chair of governors, I welcomed Tony Blair in 2008 to show him the benefits of governors' freedoms over the curriculum, pay and innovation. Blair and Adonis would be horrified by these changes, which restrict the freedom to innovate and improve.I was chair of governors of the 15th academy, and in 2008 I welcomed Sir Tony Blair to that academy in Northampton to show him the benefits of the freedoms for governors to act with regard to the national curriculum, with regard to pay and conditions, and with regard to innovation. I think that Sir Tony Blair and Lord Adonis will be horrified by these changes, which will restrict the freedoms to innovate and to improve. It is a great shame.
- That's a total misunderstanding of the Bill, and don't presume to speak for others. We are restoring academies to their core purpose — driving up standards for the most disadvantaged — and spreading innovation wherever we can.
That is a total misunderstanding of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman should not seek to speak for others in this regard. We are restoring academies to their core intended purpose of driving up standards for the most disadvantaged children in our country, with innovation spread wherever we can do that.
In Hastings, 800 children were home-schooled last year — one in 16. Most parents do a good job, but some children are not getting a good education and we need to get them back into school.I really welcome the measures in the Bill to ensure that the many children being home-schooled have all the support they need to get back into mainstream education. I was extremely concerned to find out that in the last academic year, 800 children in Hastings were being home-schooled—that is one in 16 children, or 27 classrooms of children. While there will be parents providing a good-quality education at home, I know from speaking to teachers and to local shops who see these children in their establishments that some are not necessarily getting a good education. We need to get those children back into school.
- I respect parents' right to home-educate, but every child must have a good education and we cannot lose sight of where children are. Through the Bill, where a child protection investigation is under way or there is a child protection plan, local authorities will be able to decline a request to home-educate — because we all know what can go terribly wrong when we fail to step in.
I agree with my hon. Friend. I recognise the challenge that she faces in her constituency and that we see right across our country. We have seen a big increase in the number of children being home-educated. While I respect the right of parents to make that choice—there is a complex range of reasons why many parents are now making that decision, and there are questions about how we support our children with their mental health and wider challenges on the SEND system—let me be absolutely clear to the House that all children not in school, when they are being home-educated, must have a good level of education. We cannot allow the situation to continue where we do not have visibility of where children are and they slip between the cracks. We will ensure through the Bill that when a child protection investigation is under way or there is a child protection plan, local authorities will be able to decline that request from parents, because we all sadly know what can go terribly wrong when we fail to step in and protect children.
- I'm concluding now. Running through the Bill's 60 clauses is one golden thread: children — their life chances are the aim, their protection the objective and their success our common cause. I commend the Bill to the House.
I am afraid that I am concluding now. We are bringing together the system’s many parts into a collaborative, coherent whole with children at its heart. Our ambition to support children does not stop here. We expect to bring forward further legislation when parliamentary time allows. Our work to erase the stain of child poverty must and will continue through the child poverty taskforce, which I am proud to co-chair with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Reducing the burden on schools, freeing teachers to teach and children to learn—today is about action. When colleagues from across the House read the Bill in all its detail, they will find running through its 60 clauses one golden thread, one common theme, one objective, one common cause. It is not structures or ideology, and they will find no pet projects or stale dogma. They will see that our focus is firmly on children: their life chances are the aim, their protection is the objective and their success is our common cause. This Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is written for them. It is introduced to the House for them. It will be implemented for them—for their safety, for their schooling and for their futures. I commend the Bill to the House.
I move our reasoned amendment, declining a Second Reading. This is a Bill of two halves: we see value in the child-protection and care measures, but the schools half is education vandalism — an all-out assault on the freedoms that made English children the best in the western world at reading and maths. It ends freedom over teacher pay, qualified teacher status and the curriculum, and abolishes academies in all but name. We also call for a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs.I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add: “this House, while welcoming measures to improve child protection and safeguarding, declines to give a Second Reading to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill because it undermines the long-standing combination of school freedom and accountability that has led to educational standards rising in England, effectively abolishes academy freedoms which have been integral to that success and is regressive in approach, leading to worse outcomes for pupils; because it ends freedom over teacher pay and conditions, making it harder to attract and retain good teachers; because it ends freedom over Qualified Teacher Status, making teacher recruitment harder; because it removes school freedoms over the curriculum, leading to less innovation; because repealing the requirements for failing schools to become academies and for all new schools to be academies will undermine school improvement and remove the competition which has led to rising standards; because the Bill will make it harder for good schools to expand, reducing parental choice and access to a good education; and calls upon the Government to develop new legislative proposals for children’s wellbeing including establishing a national statutory inquiry into historical child sexual exploitation, focused on grooming gangs.” The Bill in front of us today is a Bill of two halves, one of which seeks to protect children and improve safeguarding and support for children in care. While the Opposition will seek to amend various aspects of what is being put forward in Committee, we do see value in it. But the other half of the Bill is the policy equivalent of a wrecking ball. It is an all-out assault on teachers, the education system and standards. It is nothing less than education vandalism and we will oppose it with every fibre of our beings. The House must be in no doubt that the Bill really matters. It destroys the consensus built over…
- I lived the academy dream from London Challenge and saw Hackney children go to university for the first time — but your Government's free-school free-for-all paid over the odds for inadequate sites with no accountability. Standards "rose" partly because some outstanding schools went 11 years without inspection and were far from outstanding when next seen. Take responsibility for that, and applaud what the Secretary of State is putting right.
I have lived the dream of the academy programme from the very beginning under London Challenge, and I have seen Hackney children go to university—they did not when I was first elected. But the last Government brought in a wrecking ball. They made a smorgasbord of free schools, and offered an open chequebook to pay over the odds for inadequate sites that children were condemned to for years, with no accountability in the system as each bit fractured away. The reason why standards have notionally gone up is that some schools went 11 years without an inspection after they were rated were outstanding, but they were far from outstanding when they were next inspected. The right hon. Lady needs to take responsibility and accountability for what her Government did, and applaud the Secretary of State for what she is trying to do to put it right.
- We expanded academies more than fiftyfold and went up the rankings, not down. This Bill abolishes academies in all but name because Ministers think they know better than Katharine Birbalsingh and Sir Jon Coles. It is anti-rigour, anti-choice and anti-accountability.
I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Lady, but she will know that the academy programme was expanded more than 50 times under the last Government, and we went up the education rankings, not down, under the previous Government. The Bill would abolish academies in all but name, and for what? Because Education Ministers think that they know better than Katharine Birbalsingh and Sir Jon Coles. Blair said in 2005 that “command public services today are no more acceptable than a command economy.” Well, someone needs to tell the Education Secretary, because that is exactly what she is proposing in the Bill. It is anti-rigour, anti-choice and anti-accountability.
Will the next Conservative Government commit to reversing these changes and restoring headteachers' choice over the curriculum, hiring and firing and expulsions, so we have competition in schools, not the dead hand of a Whitehall bureaucrat?One of the most impressive aspects of the previous Government was the work instituted by Michael Gove to build on the reforms of Tony Blair, and carried on by successive Secretaries of State, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds). Will my right hon. Friend commit the next Conservative Government to reversing these changes and ensuring that we have more choice for headteachers on curriculum, hiring and firing and expulsions so that we bring competition to the schools sector, not the dead hand of a Whitehall bureaucrat?
- Absolutely. The Bill is a pay cut for nearly 20,000 teachers because it imposes national terms on academies — yet teachers outside national scales are paid more, not less. What problem are the Government solving? They praise academy pay innovation in their own explanatory notes and then take that freedom away. And removing the requirement for failing schools to become academies, with no clear alternative failure regime, just leaves children longer in schools that are letting them down.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. To be clear, the Bill proposes a pay cut for nearly 20,000 teachers in future years, because it imposes national terms and conditions on teachers in academies. I have to ask: what problem are the Government trying to solve? Teachers outside of national pay scales are paid more, not less. What have they got against highly paid teachers? Why on earth are the Government coming here today and telling tens of thousands of teachers that their pay is too high? It is absurd. Levelling down seems to be this Government’s priority. The flexibilities given on terms and conditions allow academies to offer things such as a longer school day. Are the Labour Government proposing to ban that? The explanatory notes to the Bill set a new standard in double speak when they praise the “positive innovation and good practice in teachers’ pay and conditions in some academies” and say that the Government want to “ensure that local authority-maintained schools also have the opportunity to implement this”. So what are they doing? Are they giving these same pay flexibilities to local authority schools? They are doing opposite. They are taking pay flexibilities away from academies. Do not try and make any sense of this, because it is impossible. It is entirely contradictory. The Government are also removing the requirement for failing schools to be taken over by an academy, despite recognising the “strong track record of multi academy trusts…turning around failing schools”. What are they replacing it with? They mention “regional improvement for standards and excellence (‘RISE’) teams”— officials sitting in the Department for Education—but in another breath they said that those teams will not be involved in failing schools. The Government have clearly totally failed; they do not understand that the reason that failing schools became academies by default is that it is the most effective intervention. If it is not mandatory, there will be lots of massive r…
Won't you concede that academisation drove the off-rolling we've seen up and down the country and fed the SEND crisis? The academy system hasn't improved inclusion — it has decreased it, leaving children stuck at home.Will the right hon. Lady concede that the academisation process has meant that the off-rolling that we have seen up and down this country has led to the crisis in SEND? That is the whole point of how the academy system has, apparently, improved standards. It has not—it has decreased inclusion. Will she please show us how the academy system has helped our children who are now stuck at home because they have been off-rolled?
- You've just confirmed Labour is anti-academy. Where is the evidence that forcing all schools onto the national curriculum solves a problem, and what justifies sweeping powers to direct academies on unspecified things? They say it prevents "unreasonable use of power" — look in the mirror.
I am glad that the hon. Lady has confirmed that the Labour party is, indeed, anti-academy. The Bill goes on and on—rampant centralisation in search of a cause. Why are the Government making all schools follow the national curriculum? Where is the evidence that there is a problem? Why are they putting in place sweeping powers to direct academies on unspecified things? What possible justification do they have for that? The notes say that it is to prevent “unreasonable use of power”. I say, look in the mirror.
- Pay and power lie behind this Bill. The unions opposed reform at every step, and the Government's visceral dislike of academy freedom puts ideology ahead of a genuine commitment to the child — not least the poorest.
My right hon. Friend has mentioned pay and power. I think they lie behind the Bill, because the education unions opposed at every step under the last Labour Government and under the last Conservative Government. The dinosaur tendency, which we just heard from the hon. Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan), shows that the Government viscerally dislike the freedom of academies, and they turn their face against the transformation of educational outcomes—not least for the poorest—because of ideology rather than a genuine commitment to the child.
- Sadly you're right. The notes admit the aim is to make the system "more consistent" — but consistency for all means excellence for none. God forbid schools innovate and learn from each other; this is command and control, with everything decided in a Whitehall office far from the classroom.
Sadly, I think my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. I see no other reason for the academy provisions to be in the Bill. It actually says in the explanatory notes that the primary aim of this legislation is to make the education system “more consistent”. That is at the heart of the problem today, because more consistency does not a better education system make. It is a classic Labour argument: one size must fit all, lopping the tops off the tallest poppies. God forbid that schools might be able to innovate and learn from each other, and teachers might have freedoms in the classroom to try new things, backed up by a regulator that rigorously inspects and identifies failure. That is an excellent education system, but one that aims solely for consistency is not—a system of command and control, stifling teachers, supressing innovation, with everything decided in an office in Whitehall, far away from the classrooms. It is same old Labour: consistency for all, excellence for none.
You keep attacking "command, control and consistency" — but weren't you part of the Government that used academies to control individual schools from Whitehall, rather than involving local authorities?The right hon. Lady has referred repeatedly to command, control and consistency, as if the latter were a problem. Presumably, she was part of the Government that sought to use academies as a mechanism by which to control individual schools from Whitehall, rather than having the individual involvement of local authorities.
- The whole point of academies is to drive up standards by freeing them from state control, and this Bill undermines that. The education part must go. On our amendment's final part — a national grooming-gangs inquiry: calling for one is not "far right". Local inquiries cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath or requisition evidence; some of the Manchester inquiry's leaders resigned after being blocked.
The whole point of academies is to drive up standards by freeing them from state control. The Bill undermines all that, which is why it would abolish academies in all but name. I urge Government Members to look at what the education part of the Bill would do. Look at the Labour history under Education Secretaries such Lord Adonis. Do not destroy something that the Labour party helped to build. The Government must get rid of the academy elements of the Bill. They will not improve the school system; they will make it worse. Do not destroy the work and policy of two decades at the stroke of a bureaucrat’s pen. We must ask ourselves: who this is all about? Are we on the side of ideology, unions and bureaucrats, or are we on side of the children and teachers, and making sure that the most disadvantaged get the best possible education? If it is the latter, the education section of the Bill must go. Let me come to the final part of our amendment, on a national grooming gang inquiry. This debate has been taken too far away from the victims and what is right for them. There are legitimate arguments to be had in this area, but the one I will not accept is that to call for an inquiry is to be far right. The Labour Government have to understand that they must explain their actions, not just call the Opposition names. Local inquiries, which the Labour Government say are the answer, do not have legal powers to summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. Some of the leaders of the Manchester inquiry resigned after they said that they were blocked from accessing information.
My politics are well left of centre, but my party and I will support this amendment. The women and children who suffered injustice over decades deserve to see the perpetrators face justice, and this amendment captures the feeling of the whole nation.First, I commend the shadow Minister for this amendment, and for the last part in particular. As everybody in this Chamber probably knows, my politics are very much left of centre, but I fully support what the Conservative party is doing with this amendment, and my party will also be supporting the Conservatives on it. The reason is quite simple: the women and children who have faced injustice over the decades deserve to see the grossly perverted perpetrators who carried out unbelievable things against children over the years face justice. We seek justice for them. The Conservative party seeks justice for them. The amendment the Conservatives have put forward today encapsulates the feeling of not just this House, but this nation.
- I'm grateful for that support. This is an enormous scandal, and we still don't know the number of victims or perpetrators, or where it happened.
I am enormously grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support, and I agree completely. This is an enormous scandal, and yet we do not fully know the number of victims or perpetrators, or where it has taken place.
What we have seen recently is disinformation turbocharged by social media and personal smears. Those who flirt with populism are willing to wreck a Bill about children's wellbeing to chase headlines, while the Government finally take action after years of inertia.I hope that the right hon. Lady and Opposition Members will reflect that what we have seen recently is a case study in disinformation turbocharged by social media, including personal smears. Today is the latest example of how those who flirt with populism misuse sensitive and important issues. It is exemplified by how the shadow Minister and other Conservative Members are willing to wreck a Bill that is actually about improving children’s wellbeing. She should reflect on how they chase headlines and jump on bandwagons, while my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench take action after years of inertia.
- The Bill will destroy our education system, which is why we oppose it. I condemn abusive language towards Members — but Labour put out a graphic claiming the then Prime Minister said paedophiles should not go to prison. With 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone, we need a comprehensive national inquiry into grooming gangs to tell the truth.
I have been very clear today that the Bill will destroy the education system in this country and reverse the progress that we have made, and that is why we oppose it. On the hon. Gentleman’s broader point, I condemn the language that has been used against hon. Members in this House. However, he will recall that the Labour party put out a social media graphic that greyed out the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), and claimed that he said that paedophiles should not go to prison. It is incumbent on all of us in this House to be moderate in our language. This is an enormous scandal, and yet we do not fully know the number of victims or perpetrators, or where it has taken place. The previous Conservative Government set up the grooming gangs taskforce, which made more than 500 arrests in the first year. With 1,400 victims in Rotherham alone, this will potentially encompass tens of thousands of children. We therefore need a comprehensive national inquiry into grooming gangs to tell the truth.
- Just to be clear: if Government Members vote for our amendment tonight, no Bill is wrecked — they simply need to vote the right way.
Just for clarification, should Government Members do the right thing tonight and vote for our amendment, there would be no wrecking of any Bill—they just need to vote the right way.
- Exactly right. Action can be taken at the same time as a national inquiry — it is not either/or. If Ministers disagree, they must argue the facts, not smear opposition as far right or hide behind parliamentary procedure.
As ever, my right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is no reason that action cannot be taken at the same time as a national inquiry—it is not an either/or. If the Government want to disagree with that, they will have to argue their case on the facts, and not simply smear any opposition to them as far right or say that parliamentary procedure means it cannot happen.
- I'm finishing. This is a chance for MPs across the House to give victims the justice they deserve. I hope that when we vote on our reasoned amendment the Government see sense on both the schools measures and the inquiry.
No, I am going to finish. This is an opportunity for MPs across the House to give victims the justice they deserve. Hon. Members have heard our arguments on the inquiry and on schools. I hope that today, when we vote on our reasoned amendment, the Government see sense on both.
Since 2010, layer upon layer of policy left this system broken — 1,300 Sure Start centres closed, SEND at breaking point, councils near bankruptcy and the worst child mental health in Europe — while names like Star Hobson, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Sara Sharif show child protection must be strengthened. I welcome the Bill, but I press Ministers: what investment will back the social-care reforms, what is the cost and timescale to put breakfast clubs in all 16,700-plus primary schools, will children with SEND get equal access to those clubs, and will you consider auto-enrolment so every eligible child gets a free school lunch?Our education system and the wider network of services that support children and families offer unparalleled opportunities to make a critical difference to the life chances of the next generation. If Governments get the policy framework right, they can support every child to thrive in their education, close the disadvantage gap and lay the foundations for good mental health and wellbeing, which will set a child up for life. However, the situation that this Government inherited in July was overall very far from that. There are, of course, many schools, teachers and other professionals who work with children and young people who are doing an exceptional job and achieving good results. As we consider this important legislation, I want to pay tribute to everyone who works to give our children and young people the best possible start in life—a great education, support where they need it and access to opportunities—and those who do the very difficult work of keeping the most vulnerable children safe. The challenges in our system are not down to them; they are the consequence of layer upon layer of policy decisions taken since 2010 that have made the context in which they work immeasurably harder. I shall mention just a few of those policy decisions. The decision to cut the funding for early help and support for families, resulting in the closure of 1,300 Sure Start centres, stripped away vital support that can prevent families from reaching a crisis. While funding for early help and support has reduced, expenditure on child protection and on children in the care system in crisis situations that can often be prevented has gone up. The decision to make academy schools directly accountable to the Secretary of State and responsible for their own admissions policies, and to make free schools the main delivery method for new schools, has left local authorities, which retain the statutory duty for providing a school place for every child who needs one and for SEND provision, wit…
Child obesity is up by a third and diabetes by a fifth. Breakfast clubs are welcome, but shouldn't school food standards be updated to the latest nutritional advice and made clearly to apply to breakfast?The hon. Lady mentions school breakfast. Child obesity is up by a third and diabetes is up by a fifth. Does she agree that, while free breakfast clubs are a great opportunity to ensure children are fed, we must also ensure that school meals are healthy and nutritious; and that, alongside the Bill, school food standards need to be updated in line with the most recent nutritional advice, making it clear that they apply to breakfast?
- I agree school food should be the highest quality, though budget cuts have eroded what schools can spend. The care-leaver measures are welcome but limited: only 14% of care leavers go to university against 46% of their peers, so what more will you do, why no national care-leaver offer to end the postcode lottery, are you still expanding corporate parenting duties, and will you set out a workforce strategy for social work, teaching and early years?
I agree with the hon. Lady that school food, in whichever setting it is delivered, should be of the highest quality. She will know about the pressures on school budgets. My constituency has experienced among the highest drops in funding for local schools of anywhere in the country. That has eroded the money that schools have to spend on high-quality food. I know that that is one of the areas on which those on the Government Front Bench will be anxious to deliver over time as public finances permit. The measures to support care leavers are welcome, but are limited to extended Staying Close support and requiring local authorities to publish the details of their offer. What further measures does the Minister intend to take to improve outcomes for care leavers and to ensure they get the same opportunities as their peers? Only 14% of care leavers go to university compared with 46% of non-care-experienced young people. What further measures will the Government take to support care leavers to access and stay in higher education? Why are the Government not proposing a national offer for care leavers to address the postcode lottery in care, in particular to provide care leavers with the confidence that if they choose to attend university away from home, because that is the best option for them, the same support will be available to them wherever they study? The policies and practices of other Departments also have a profound effect on the experience of care leavers. Can the Minister confirm whether, outside of the Bill, the Government are still considering the expansion of corporate parenting duties, so that every part of the state is required to take seriously its duty to looked-after children and care-experienced people? Finally, to deliver on the commitments in the Bill, those who work with children and families will need support. There are challenges in recruitment and retention across many of the professions, from social work to teaching to the early years. Will the Gov…
After five years here, I'm delighted finally to consider legislation focused on children, and the Liberal Democrats will approach it in a spirit of constructive co-operation. No child should ever face abuse, and the state must investigate every allegation — but we will implement the Jay inquiry's recommendations in full rather than kill this Bill, so we cannot accept the Opposition's wrecking amendment.After five years in this place, I am relieved and delighted that I and other hon. Members finally have the chance to consider a piece of legislation that focuses on children. The Bill gets to the heart of our shared duty as public representatives to ensure the safety and wellbeing of our children. The Liberal Democrats will approach the Bill in a spirit of constructive co-operation. I urge colleagues across the House to do the same for the sake of our children up and down the country. On that particular note, I turn to the reasoned amendment tabled in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for North West Essex (Mrs Badenoch). Everyone in this House agrees that no child should ever face sexual abuse and exploitation. We all agree that the state must comprehensively investigate all allegations. We must deliver justice and prevent these sickening acts from happening again in future. Where we disagree is on how to achieve that. We on the Liberal Democrat Benches want action that helps victims and prevents these crimes from happening again. The Conservative party wants to derail this important Bill instead. We will table amendments ensuring the recommendations of the Jay inquiry are implemented in full. We will be a party of constructive opposition and we will aim to strengthen the Bill and its crucial measures on child protection and safeguarding. For that reason, we cannot accept the Opposition’s wrecking amendment. Our children’s safety and wellbeing is simply far too important. We owe it to them all to get this right.
- In what way is our amendment — which accepts the safeguarding element but challenges the educational vandalism — so objectionable?
Can the hon. Lady set out exactly in what way the amendment, which I think is entirely constructive—it accepts the safeguarding element, but challenges the educational vandalism that is being undertaken by the Government—is so objectionable?
- If the reasoned amendment passes, the Bill falls — that is why it is a wrecking amendment, and killing a Bill that improves children's safety is no way to get justice for victims. There is much to welcome, but we will probe and strengthen, starting with kinship care, putting a statutory definition and the local offer into law.
I humbly say to the right hon. Gentleman, who has been in this place much longer than I have, that I understand that if the reasoned amendment were passed, the Bill would fall. That is why it is not a constructive amendment. That is why it is a wrecking amendment. I do not think killing a Bill that seeks to improve safeguards and safety for our children is the way to get justice for innocent victims of sexual abuse. There is much in the Bill that we on the Liberal Democrat Benches welcome, but of course there are areas of detail where we will seek to probe and strengthen, and measures on which we will seek to go further. As the Bill makes its way through the House, we will provide that detailed scrutiny, challenge and improvement. Some important changes are in the provisions on kinship care. The Secretary of State will be aware that this is a subject close to my heart and those of my party colleagues.
I moved into my grandparents' care as a young teenager, so this matters to me. We must get kinship care right first time — Ministers should keep listening to kinship organisations on the definition and on mental health support.It is an issue close to my heart as well, as I moved into the care of my grandparents as a young teenager. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial we get this absolutely right first time, because it is such a rare opportunity to address kinship care? Ministers should keep listening to kinship organisations to fill in the gaps that those organisations see in the Bill, particularly in relation to the definition and to mental health care support.
- You're right. A statutory definition alone won't deliver the financial and practical support families need, and the action is limited to certain sub-groups. When will the kinship allowance pilot extend to all kinship carers, and why not extend pupil premium plus and priority admissions to children in kinship care? We support the register of children not in school — we uphold the right to home-educate, but it is deeply concerning that thousands of children's whereabouts are simply unknown.
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is absolutely right. I welcome the measures that put information about the local kinship care offer on a statutory footing, recognising the crucial role of kinship carers and finally putting a statutory definition into law, which we have long called for. Yet a definition in and of itself will not provide the financial and practical support that many families and children need. Areas where the Government are taking action are limited to certain sub-groups of kinship carers and their children, thus undermining the value of the proposed definition. The charity Kinship says it would “hope to see future legislation and the forthcoming multi-year spending review further prioritise wider kinship care reform”. I therefore ask the Secretary of State, and will ask the Minister during the progress of the Bill, when they plan to expand the current pilot scheme to provide allowances to all kinship carers. Why does the educational support in the Bill not seek to extend pupil premium plus and priority admissions for children in kinship care? We welcome the Bill’s provisions on child safeguarding, including the register of children not in school. As Liberals, our party firmly upholds the right of parents to educate their children at home when it is the best choice for their child. In 99% of cases a parent knows what is best for their child, but it is deeply concerning that there may be many thousands of children whose whereabouts are simply unknown. That reality can contribute, as we have seen all too recently, to tragic safeguarding failures, and that cannot continue.
- Can you name a single instance where a home-educated child at harm was not already known to social services? Too easily a failure of social services is conflated with home education, which is entirely separate.
Can the hon. Lady provide a single instance where a child who was in home education—we must remember that children at school spend about 86% of their time out of school—who was at harm was not known to social services already? Too easily there is a conflation of a failure of social services, which needs to be fixed, with home education, which is entirely separate.
- The evidence says education must be a key safeguarding partner. When a child is identified as at risk, ensuring they are in school helps protect them — as we saw tragically with Sara Sharif, who was taken out of school and then abused at home.
All the evidence points to the fact that the education and schools sector must be a key safeguarding partner, which is why it is in the Bill. When a child has been identified as being at risk, ensuring that they are in school, which the Bill seeks to do, will help to safeguard them. We saw this all too tragically in the recent case of Sara Sharif: she was taken out of school and then abused at home, and tragically died.
- This register is just an additional measure to keep children safe — it is not an attack on home education, which we champion. The Children's Commissioner, the NSPCC and parties across the House back it; the Conservatives started to legislate for it and then binned it. But the data collected must be strictly necessary and proportionate, and I question including children in special schools in Clause 24 — where a placement isn't meeting a child's needs, the answer should be to improve it or find alternative provision, not a blunt instrument. On pay, the framework should be a floor, not a ceiling, so any school can pay a premium to attract the right staff.
The point is that this is just an additional measure to ensure that children like her are safe. I want to reiterate to colleagues across the House that we absolutely support and champion the right of parents to home-educate. This is not an attack on home education; it is about ensuring that all children are safe. That is the view of the Children’s Commissioner, the National Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children and many other organisations, and in fact parties across the House. The Conservatives themselves started to legislate for this in the last Parliament but then binned the provision. There is cross-party consensus on this measure. There are areas of detail that we need to dig into during the Bill’s progress, but in headline terms, the register is a crucial tool in the armoury that we give local authorities to ensure that our children are safe. As I have said, it has been called for by many organisations and all parties. However, the volume of information requested from parents places a significant and potentially intrusive burden on those who choose to home-educate for the right reasons, so we must ensure that data collection is strictly necessary and proportionate and is being used appropriately. Clause 24 sets out the cases in which parents and carers must seek permission to withdraw children from school. I would question the inclusion of children placed in special schools. When there are safeguarding concerns about a child, the local authorities should be able to step in to ensure that they receive their education at school. However, some children’s needs will not be met in the special schools in which they are placed, and parents may feel that they have no option but to home-educate. In such cases, should not the presumed options be to improve the child’s experience of the school or to work with the family to secure alternative provision, rather than using the blunt instrument of clause 24? We know that, after years of neglect and mismanagement…
- As an employment lawyer I saw academies generate huge amounts of employment-rights litigation because they tend not to treat staff well — and litigation is not in children's best interests.
My experience as an employment lawyer is that academy schools generate large amounts of employment rights litigation because they tend not to treat their staff very well. [Interruption.] Some do, of course, but litigation is not in the best interests of children, and ensuring that children have teachers who are adequately paid is a key consideration for Labour Members.
- I can't comment on litigation statistics by school type — you'll find cases across the board. Child poverty is the key issue hindering wellbeing: we Liberal Democrats have a fully costed plan to extend free school meals to the 900,000 children in poverty up to 18 who are currently excluded, and around 470,000 eligible children miss out, costing them meals and their schools pupil premium.
I am not in a position to comment on the statistics relating to employment law issues in different types of school. I suspect that whichever type of school we look at, we will find cases across the board, but I am not sure that is up for debate today. The title of the Bill includes the words “Children’s Wellbeing”, but child poverty is the key issue hindering the wellbeing of children in the UK today. The shameful legacy of the Conservative Government is one of far too many children going hungry at school. We Liberal Democrats have put forward a fully costed plan to extend free school meals to the 900,000 children in poverty up to the age of 18 who are currently excluded, and it is disappointing that the Government have not taken this opportunity to ensure that no child goes hungry throughout the school day. A meal at lunch time may be the only hot, nutritious meal that some children get, and all the evidence shows that it helps them to concentrate and learn through the course of the day and achieve better outcomes. We must also bear in mind that hunger does not end at 11. Breakfast clubs can be useful, but expanding lunch provision is a far more ambitious measure, and one that would have a greater impact on child hunger. As was pointed out by the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), far too many families who are entitled to claim free school meals are not doing so; there are an estimated 470,000 such cases. Not only are those children missing out on the hot meals to which they are entitled, but their schools are missing out on much-needed pupil premium funding.
- At a primary school in my constituency the kitchen is closed because of RAAC and the last Government's failure to fund repairs, so no child there can have hot food. That's not good enough, is it?
I welcome the hon. Lady’s comments about the need for young people to have hot food. At Jerounds primary school in my constituency, the kitchen is closed because of reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete and the last Government’s failure to provide the necessary funds, so none of those children can have hot food. Does the hon. Lady agree that is not good enough?
- I'm very sorry to hear that — the last Government failed to deal with RAAC. Durham's Lib Dem-led council introduced free-school-meal auto-enrolment and signed up 2,500 extra children and £3 million in pupil premium; imagine that nationally. And I'm disappointed there is no mention of mental health in a "wellbeing Bill" — around six children in every classroom have a mental health condition, so we will seek a statutory, funded duty for a dedicated mental health professional in every school.
Absolutely, and I am very sorry to hear about that case. The last Government did not deal with RAAC in our school buildings, and it was as a result of work that my colleagues and I did, along with Labour Members, to expose some of the shocking extent of it that we finally started to get some traction on the issue. The Liberal Democrat-led coalition administration in Durham county council introduced auto-enrolment for free school meals in September last year. An extra 2,500 children have been signed up, and there has been an extra £3 million in pupil premium funding for the county. Just imagine the impact that that model could have nationally. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to expand free school meals and introduce auto-enrolment. I was disappointed to see no mention of mental health in a “wellbeing Bill.” This was an opportunity to tackle the mental health crisis that we are seeing among our children, and it is crucial that we do not allow that opportunity to slide away. Given that, on average, six children in every classroom have a mental health condition, the Government could have seized the chance to ensure that every school in the country, whether primary or secondary, has a statutory and fully funded duty to provide a dedicated mental health professional. As the Bill progresses, my Liberal Democrat colleagues and I will seek to do just that, and I am sure that we can count on support from across the House.
Many children with mental health problems and autism are educated at home because there is no realistic alternative. Should the home-education support in Clause 25 include free access to examinations, which can cost hundreds of pounds?My hon. Friend is making an excellent and balanced case for protecting children. Many children with mental health problems and autism are educated at home because there is no realistic alternative. Does she agree that the Secretary of State should be encouraged to ensure that the support given to home-educating families under clause 25 includes free access to examinations, which can cost hundreds of pounds? Children are struggling to benefit from a good home education because of the cost. Does my hon. Friend support that idea?
- I support that — the Lib Dems tabled exactly that amendment to the previous schools Bill in the Lords, and we will again. We'd like greater ambition: the attainment gap has widened, so we want a tutoring guarantee for every disadvantaged pupil who needs support. Now is the time to keep our children safe and let them flourish, not to play politics.
I am happy to support that. In fact, when the previous Administration introduced the schools Bill, which they then decided to bin, the Liberal Democrats in the House of Lords tabled an amendment that did just that, and I am sure that we will seek to do the same this time around to help the families who choose to home-educate. Although this Bill sets out some important reforms to our schools system, the Liberal Democrats would like to see greater ambition. The attainment gap has widened significantly in recent years, and it is unacceptable that outcomes for less affluent and more vulnerable students are getting worse. We believe that one piece of the puzzle would be a tutoring guarantee for every disadvantaged pupil who needs support. When implemented correctly, tutoring has proved its worth time and again. Seven in 10 parents whose children receive tutoring at school say that it has raised their child’s attainment. We know that it also boosts young people’s confidence, and tutoring can help tackle persistent absence, which is a huge issue in our schools. I hope the Secretary of State agrees that a tutoring guarantee, introduced via this Bill, would be a powerful tool in narrowing the attainment gap and ensuring that every child gets the high-quality education they deserve. Let me reiterate that this is a Bill that we must get right. Now is not the time to play politics. Now is the time to work to keep our children safe, to give them the chance to flourish. That is our task across this House, and it is the mission that my party will pursue as the Bill progresses.
As a former teacher and local authority children's lead, I know how overdue these measures are, which is why it's a shame to see others turn this into a political sideshow. Clause 21 delivers our commitment that no child starts school hungry, and the register in Clause 24 gives local authorities visibility of every child off the roll — serious case reviews show exactly why that matters. This is not an attack on home-schooling; it's about making sure no child is left to slip through the net.I thank those on the Front Bench for the speed with which they have brought forward the Bill so early in the parliamentary term. As a former teacher and a local authority children’s lead, I know how important so many of the measures are—an importance matched only by how overdue so many of them are too—which is why it is such a shame to see others seeking to turn the debate into a political sideshow, when it should really be an opportunity for the House to come together behind some powerful and important safeguarding measures. As a teacher who saw at first hand the importance of breakfast clubs for delivering the best start to a school day for young people, and as a local authority leader who worked to expand them, I am really excited to see that clause 21 brings forward Labour’s commitment to ensure that no child starts school hungry. No one should tolerate children starting school without the food they need to learn and to be ready for their school day, and I am glad that this Government certainly will not do so. Today, however, I want to focus on some of the measures relating to keeping some of the most vulnerable children in society safe and ensuring that they have the support they need. I am particularly pleased to see clause 24, which places on local authorities an obligation to have a register and visibility of every child off the school roll. As a former local authority lead, I know that reading serious case reviews is an important part of preparation for any role, and certainly for that one. If we read those serious case reviews and stories of what can happen to some of the most vulnerable young people when they are allowed to fall off the radar and to slip through the net, and when they are left open to exploitation and abuse by some of the most evil people in our society, we can be under no illusions as to why this measure is so important. I absolutely understand why, at first reading, those who home-school might have some concerns about it, but this is ab…
- Do you have sympathy with parents let down by their local authority on SEND support, who recognise the historical primacy of parents over their child's education and now see legislation saying the state, not the parent, decides whether a child can be taken out of school?
Does the hon. Gentleman have sympathy with parents who feel that they have been let down by the local authority on support for their child with special educational needs, who recognise the historical primacy of parents in determining the education of their child, and who are now seeing a piece of legislation that removes that right and says that the state, not the parent, decides whether a child can be taken out of school? We all accept that where there are safeguarding issues, action should be taken, but is the hon. Gentleman really comfortable with changing the approach for the ordinary parent after decades of it being the other way around?
- Read the Bill — we set the threshold as high as a section 47 child-protection assessment under the Children Act 1989, so we've been cautious. For too long children's social care has delivered poor outcomes at great cost, which is why the Staying Close and published care-leaver offer matter so much, and why family group decision-making in Clause 1 could be transformative — bringing family in early to keep children out of care. Recognising kinship carers and cutting unnecessary agency and profiteering costs is welcome too.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for one of his many interventions today. I am not sure I heard an apology for the state in which SEND provision was left by the previous Government, but I absolutely recognise the point that I think he is trying to make. If he reads the Bill, however, he will see a lot of assurances. In choosing to set the threshold as high as a section 47 assessment—a child protection assessment under the Children Act 1989—we have been incredibly cautious about where we have drawn the line. Some outside this House might even say we have been too cautious about where we have drawn the line, but it recognises the important balance that has to be struck here, for exactly the reason that the right hon. Gentleman alludes to. Alongside that, I think colleagues across the House recognise the fact that, for far too long, children’s social care has not been doing right by some of the most vulnerable people in our society. At great cost, the system is delivering really poor outcomes for vulnerable young people. It is not providing the love and support that they need, and that love and support does not last anywhere near long enough into their adult life. No parent would expect their responsibilities to end when their child turns 18. I would not tolerate that for my child, and I am sure no one in this Chamber would, yet as a society we all too often do so for those who are in our care. That is why the Bill’s requirements around staying put, and around making sure that we have a published care leaver offer, will be so important. I welcome the Secretary of State’s leadership, which has ensured that we have moved at pace, and I look forward to continuing to work with her and with organisations that speak on behalf of care leavers right across the country, to ensure that the Bill’s measures are implemented in the most effective and robust way possible. Those in our care would expect nothing less, and I am sure that all of us across the House will make sure that we…
This Bill reverses far further back than the Gove-Gibb reforms — it's as if Adonis, Blunkett and Blair's "education, education, education" never happened. There are things we agree with, but the biggest part is an attack on school and trust autonomy, handing power back to Whitehall and councils. We have the best primary readers in the west and free-school-meal pupils 50% more likely to go to university than in 2010 — because of teachers, supported by reforms built on standards, diversity and choice, capacity, and clear information like Progress 8 and Ofsted.I am sure that today Labour MPs will cheer what they see as the final demise of the Gove-Gibb reforms, but the Bill before us reverses far further back than that. If this Bill passes in anything close to its current form, it will be as if Lord Adonis was never the Schools Minister and Lord Blunkett had never sat in the Secretary of State’s place. It will be as if Tony Blair had never been Prime Minister, and had never made central to his pledge to the British people in 1997 those famous three words: “Education, education, education.” To be clear, there are things in this Bill that we agree with. There are things that were in our Bill. There are things that build on the work that we were doing on Staying Close, on virtual school heads, on kinship care and more. Of course, there are also things in the Bill that are designed to be eye-catching initiatives—something that the Government learned from New Labour—such as the retail offer, to use the jargon, on breakfast clubs. There are already thousands of breakfast clubs in our country. By the way, we would like to know what will happen to breakfast clubs at secondary school, where they would make more of an impact on attendance than in primary school. There are also the provisions on uniform. We have had statutory guidance on uniform for a long time, so I have no idea why it is necessary to write it into law. The principal aim seems to be to outlaw primary schools requiring the wearing of a tie. The biggest part of this Bill—read the detail—is about attacking school and trust autonomy and giving power back to Whitehall and the local education authority. Colleagues on both sides of the House know there has been a dramatic transformation in educational attainment in this country. We now have the best primary school readers in the western world, and we have seen dramatic improvements in secondary school maths, reading and science. Children eligible for free school meals are now 50% more likely to go to university than they…
An award-winning headteacher of an award-winning dyslexia school in Lichfield used his 90th birthday message to say the obsessive focus on synthetic phonics is holding pupils back. That's not me saying it — it's him.I could make some points about Progress 8, but that is not why I am intervening. Just yesterday, my local news website reported that Dr Brown, the award-winning founding headteacher of the award-winning Maple Hayes Hall school for dyslexia in Lichfield, used his 90th birthday message to say that the obsessive focus on synthetic phonics is holding back pupils. That is not me saying that; it comes from the award-winning headteacher of an award-winning school.
- So the new Labour party still rejects synthetic phonics, which has remarkable evidence behind it, for fashionable progressive policies. What does ending the qualified-teacher-status freedom or imposing the national pay framework actually achieve? I know of no evidence academies are undercutting pay — some pay more, which means they are investing.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting the House know that the new Labour party still rejects synthetic phonics, which has the most remarkable depth of evidence behind it, in favour of its fashionable, progressive policies. This is why I say that all the progress achieved by our reforms is at imminent risk. Labour has already stopped new free schools, and now there will be far fewer academy conversions. Even existing academies are about to see their freedoms eroded. What is the practical benefit of all these erosions? Take the qualified teacher status requirement. Schools are not going around en masse recruiting teachers without qualifications, but there can be times when it is right for a school to employ a teacher from the independent sector or another country. What will this requirement achieve? Or take the statutory pay and conditions framework. I know of no evidence that academy groups are undercutting pay and conditions—if any Labour Member does, they should please intervene. Some academy groups pay more, and what does that mean? It means they are investing.
It's about pay and conditions, not just pay, and it needs to be national if we are to recruit and retain teachers. The previous Government failed on every measure to retain and recruit qualified teachers.The right hon. Gentleman needs to understand that it is about pay and conditions, not just pay, and it needs to be national if we are to recruit and retain teachers. The previous Government failed on every single measure to retain and recruit qualified teachers.
- So successful trusts brought in new talent and improved retention, but apparently they are not the right people to decide — Labour Ministers should decide for them. Most schools already follow the national curriculum; what is wrong with innovating on top of it, especially when this Bill pre-empts a curriculum review whose contents we don't yet know? Keeping a broad framework, not a prescriptive list, has guarded against the over-politicisation of education.
I am grateful to Labour colleagues for their interventions, and for telling this House and the country what they need to know. All these successful schools and trusts have been doing exactly that. They have brought new talent into the profession, and they have helped to improve retention, but no, they are not the right people to make that decision, are they? No, Labour MPs and Labour Ministers should be making that decision for them. The vast majority of schools follow the national curriculum, but some innovate. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with adding something on top of the national curriculum? In any case, every school is statutorily required to deliver a balanced and broadly focused curriculum, and they are checked on that by Ofsted. Finally, there is the power for councils to prevent good, popular schools from expanding. What could that possibly achieve, except creating more disappointed families, children and parents? The one thing these four measures will achieve is ticking one more union demand. This Bill cannot be seen in isolation. Look at the Government’s broader proposals: scrapping the Latin excellence programme; scrapping the expansion of the cadets programme in state schools; making Ofsted judgments less transparent; and taxing independent sector education for the first time in our country’s history, and almost uniquely in the world, in a way that will fill more of the most popular state schools and make it harder for families to get their child into the state school of their choice. Potentially the biggest thing of all is the curriculum review. This Bill says that schools must follow the national curriculum, before the new national curriculum is set out. It pre-empts the review. We do not know what will be in the review, and we have to keep an open mind and see what comes forward, but I remind colleagues that the Government are not forced to adopt what the independent reviewers come up with, nor are they obliged to stop where the independen…
Academies don't have to follow the national curriculum — and 42% of schools now enter no pupils for GCSE music, 41% none for drama, 84% none for dance. Isn't that a factor here?I am listening with interest to the right hon. Gentleman’s points about the national curriculum, which we know academies currently do not have to follow. I note that 42% of schools across the country no longer enter any pupils for GCSE music, and the figure is 41% for drama and 84% for dance. Does he think that is a factor in this debate?
- You should add technical and vocational qualifications, or it's misleading. The curriculum review is also an assessment review, and Labour has form — its target-obsessed five-A-to-C measure led to grade inflation while we tumbled down the OECD table. What gets measured gets mangled. True excellence in state education is the opposite of elitist; it levels the playing field, and under this Bill it is everyone else who will suffer.
The hon. Gentleman should have added the GCSE numbers to the numbers for technical and vocational qualifications, otherwise it is misleading. We all want kids to study the subjects they wish to study, and the subjects from which they will benefit. I am not sure how what the hon. Gentleman says negates what I just said, which is how we normally debate. The curriculum review is also an assessment review, and we have heard much less about what that means. We know that the Labour party had form on this when it was last in government, with its target-rich—I might say target-obsessed—approach to achieving five or more GCSEs at grade C or above, including English and maths. On the face of it, that is a perfectly good target, but when I was on the Education Committee back in 2012, when it was chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart), we had an inquiry on grade inflation. I counted 11 different ways in which the figures were massaged, such that it looked like things were getting better every year but, when the OECD numbers came out, we were tumbling down the international table. It was naive, because what gets measured gets mangled, and I worry that is about to happen all over again. It does children no favours. Also on international rankings, at the end of Labour’s last term in Government, we were the only country in the developed world where the literacy and numeracy of young adults was poorer than that of the generation about to retire. At least in the new Labour era, Labour Members believed they were pursuing academic excellence, but I am afraid that has now gone out of fashion. The progressive phrases we hear from Labour Members sound good—“accessibility”, “relevance”, “modernity”—but though they are beguiling, those things rarely actually help the children they are thought to help. The pursuit of true excellence in state education is not elitist. It is the opposite of elitist; it levels the playing field, and it means that…
After decades campaigning for children's health and better school food, I'm delighted universal primary breakfast clubs are going on a statutory footing — the Education Endowment Foundation found they deliver two months' extra attainment at key stage 1. But there is no national monitoring of breakfast food quality, so enforce the school food standards. It's also a missed opportunity not to include free-school-meal auto-enrolment: 470,000 eligible children miss out, and as it is a statutory scheme the funding already exists, while auto-enrolment unlocks vital pupil premium.After decades of campaigning for the health of children and better school food, I am so pleased that universal primary breakfast club provision is being put on a statutory footing in the Bill. There is no greater priority for this Government than raising the healthiest generation of children ever. The fact that the Conservative party is trying to play politics with the wellbeing of children when it comes to this Bill is a true reflection of where its priorities lie. Providing a free breakfast to all primary school pupils is yet another manifesto commitment fulfilled, and it will transform the lives of children across the country. The Education Endowment Foundation found that school breakfasts can help deliver two months-worth of extra attainment at key stage 1. There will also be huge health outcomes. One in three children are already at risk of future food-related ill health, such as type 2 diabetes or heart disease, by the age of 10. By providing a nutritious breakfast, we can ensure that children start their day at school ready to learn. However, I am concerned that the Bill does not include any kind of nationwide system of monitoring the food served in breakfast clubs. The school food standards set out over 10 years ago are still not being enforced. Children will be at risk—though it will not necessarily happen—of being served poor-quality breakfasts under the scheme. Alongside the roll-out, we need to put in place the recommendations in the excellent 2013 school food plan about Ofsted and the enforcement of standards. I hope that will be considered in later stages and iterations of the Bill. Speaking of health outcomes, it is a missed opportunity not to include auto-enrolment for free school meals in the Bill, as others have said today. The Department for Education has reported that nationally, 11% of families who are entitled to claim free school meals have not applied to receive them. That means that 470,000 children in England are missing out on their statut…
This Bill is based on socialist dogma — it reduces choice and competition and takes away parents' freedom to home-educate, so I'll vote against it. But how can we debate "children's wellbeing" while our constituents are talking about grooming gangs and mass rapes? Every attempt at an honest national debate has been shut down, and one journalist now believes this has happened in at least 50 towns and is still going on.I have no doubt that the Bill is based on socialist dogma. It will reduce choice and competition, and take away parents’ freedom to educate at home. I am against it. I will vote against it, and Government Members will vote for it—that is how politics works in this country—but how on earth can we look at the words “Children’s Wellbeing” in the title of the Bill, and debate and vote on that subject, when out there in the country, our constituents are talking about what we used to call grooming gangs, although I think we have moved on to calling them mass and gang rapes? Since 2012, I have tried to campaign for more truth and honesty about what has gone on, although the former Labour MP for Keighley, Ann Cryer, was doing that as far back as 2002. Every attempt at a proper national debate on the scale of the problem has been shut down. We thought initially that in half a dozen northern towns, there was a serious problem—mass sexual assaults, and rapes of children and young women. However, after recent research, journalist Charlie Peters at GB News says that he is certain that this has taken place in at least 50 towns in our country, and is still going on today.
I appreciate looking at this in the round, but don't you accept the Bill contains measures that will protect children, stop them being abused and make it harder for groomers to get access to them — which is what we all want?I sincerely thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I appreciate the need to look at these issues in the round, but does he accept that there are measures in the Bill that will protect children, based on what we already know? Those measures will help stop children across the country being abused, and make it harder for groomers to get access to them, which is what we all want, is it not? I hope he agrees with me.
- No. The Jay inquiry is 459 pages and never mentions grooming gangs once, with Rotherham mentioned only in passing — it was a shotgun across many areas. We need a rifle-shot national inquiry into the extent to which gangs of Pakistani men raped young white girls, with a deep racist element behind it. If the Government won't hold it, Reform will raise the money and appoint independent arbiters, because the country deserves the truth.
No, I do not. Whatever measures are in the Bill to protect children—we all want to see children protected, for goodness’ sake—will not protect them. The Prime Minister is doing his best to tell us that there has been an inquiry: the Jay inquiry. Well, there has, and it is 459 pages long. Grooming gangs are not mentioned once. Rotherham is literally mentioned once, in passing. The scope of that inquiry was like a shotgun: it was to cover a whole range of areas in which children were being abused. What we need, and are calling for, is a rifle-shot inquiry that looks specifically at the question: to what extent were gangs of Pakistani men raping young white girls? Ultimately, it seems to me that there is a deep racist element behind what happened. I might be right or I might be wrong, but does the country not deserve a full, open and national inquiry? I believe there is now overwhelming support on all sides of the political spectrum for that; Parliament should not be in denial. If the Government will not hold it, we will raise the money at Reform UK and appoint independent arbiters, because we need the truth to be out there. I will vote for the amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition, although I note that as Women and Equalities Minister from 2022 to 2024, she did not meet a single victim of the rapes, and never raised the issue once. Insincere though the amendment may be, we will vote for it. However, I beg Labour Members to think. Do their constituents not need to know the truth about this great evil that has happened in our country?
Around 500,000 children are abused every year, and this Bill is about safeguarding them — a register of home-schooled children, multi-agency teams, measures to prevent crimes like those against Sara Sharif. No party has clean hands, but the Conservative leadership and Reform MPs are weaponising victims' pain for political ends. When they claim abuse is imported from "alien cultures", they mask the reality: it happens in every area, across every class, race and religion. What perpetrators have in common is that they are overwhelmingly men, and male violence is a national emergency.Every year, around 500,000 children in this country are abused. That number is likely higher, because the vast majority of abuse is hidden. The Bill is about safeguarding them. It is about stopping vulnerable children from falling through the cracks—for example, by having a register of those who are home-schooled. It is about trying to prevent horrific crimes, such as those committed against Sara Sharif, from ever happening again. The Children’s Charities Coalition has called it “a major step forward”. I want to be clear that no party has completely clean hands on this issue. Under successive Governments, vulnerable children have been systematically failed by the institutions that were supposed to protect them, such as the police, social services, local authorities, the Crown Prosecution Service and schools. They were disbelieved and their lives were devalued. We in this House owe it to victims and survivors of the past, present and, sadly, future to give them justice and protection where the state failed so badly. If we are to do that, we cannot turn child sexual abuse and exploitation into a political football. I want to be clear that it is by no means all Members on the Opposition Benches who are guilty of doing that; there have been dedicated, powerful advocates for children on both sides of the House. However, the Conservative leadership, and Reform MPs, marching to the beat of Elon Musk’s drum, are plainly weaponising the pain and trauma of victims for their own political ends. I do not know whether they just do not realise how deeply painful and retraumatising it is for survivors to hear their abuse being spoken about so flippantly, often in graphic terms, by people who profess to care but did not act when they had the power to, just to bolster their unrelated political agenda, or whether they just do not care. I implore hon. Members on the Opposition Benches to stop. When they say that child sexual abuse and exploitation are the result of alien cultures or a…
Don't you worry, like me, that the recent attempt to reopen an inquiry is less about supporting victims and more about inciting racial tensions?Does the hon. Lady worry, like me, that the recent attempt in the debate to reopen an inquiry is less about supporting victims and stamping out sexual violence, and more about inciting racial tensions?
- I share that concern. I'm thrilled the Bill helps with family costs through free breakfast clubs, and I want us to go further with free school meals for all children and a profit cap on children's-home providers — but it must be backed by more investment in child mental health services, social care and tackling child poverty.
I share the hon. Member’s concerns. I also take the opportunity to applaud her for her work over many years in this House on the all-party parliamentary group for childhood trauma, raising the issue before it was politically convenient to do so. I am thrilled that the Bill includes measures to help with families’ costs, such as free breakfast clubs for all primary school children, which will boost children’s wellbeing. I want to see us go further still and provide free school meals for all children. The Bill also allows the Secretary of State to cap the profits of children’s home providers, ending the obscene scandal of local authorities forced to shell out huge sums to private providers. Finally, I urge that this ambitious and important Bill is backed by even further investment in areas that will improve children’s wellbeing. We need more money for children and adolescent mental health services, for children’s social care and to tackle child poverty.
Child sexual abuse takes place across our whole society — the Church of England has just seen resignations over it — so to deny that is for the birds. On uniforms: branded items from monopoly suppliers cost more than double the high-street price, and three branded items for three children twice a year can cost over £300 against £108 from a supermarket. Why three branded items rather than one identifiable item like a tie or jumper, and what else will you do to keep uniform costs down?I am standing up to talk about the important issue of school uniforms, but I will first say that the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome) was quite right to point out that child sexual abuse takes place across our society. We have just seen the Archbishop of Canterbury and others in the Church of England resign over child sexual abuse. For the hon. Member for Clacton (Nigel Farage) to deny that it affects all aspects of society is, frankly, for the birds. I am a single parent to two teenagers and, like many other parents in this place, I know how many expenses are involved in sending children to school. As they grow and progress through school, they require different pairs of shoes, sets of stationery and money for school trips. State schools should represent a level playing field for children of all backgrounds, where pupils are treated with the same respect and given the same opportunities. I recognise that a school uniform allows pupils to go into school with the same appearance and not be discriminated against or bullied for what they wear. However, school uniform is one of the biggest costs in sending children to school, and although I welcome the Government’s commitment to limiting the number of branded items students are required to have each year, more needs to be done to support parents during the cost of living crisis, when they are already facing higher energy bills and food costs. From my experience of sending my daughter to state school, branded school uniform items are being sold from monopoly suppliers for an inflated price, compared with the items bought from high street and charity shops. The Bill talks about restricting schools to three branded items of uniform—by the way, I do not read that as excluding primary schools from letting kids wear ties. The bare minimum of three branded items of a jumper, a polo shirt and a skirt for my daughter’s school costs more than double that from a high street shop. For a family with three children to…
For decades children's social care has been an afterthought, and politicians of all colours have failed our most vulnerable children — 1% of the child population but 37% of those in youth justice, with only 15% of looked-after children getting good GCSEs. As a former child-protection barrister I saw social workers begging foster carers late into the night and children sleeping on office floors for want of a placement. The lack of sufficient, safe accommodation is a disgrace, and the last Government was warned by the High Court in 2020.This Bill provides us with an important moment. For many decades, children’s social care has been overlooked—an afterthought for Government. Over the past 30 years, politicians of all colours have too often failed the most vulnerable children in this country—the children who are unable to be looked after by their own family. I am delighted that this Education Secretary and her team have put those children at the heart of this legislation. It is testament to her personal commitment to social justice and fairness. The statistics on outcomes for children in care and the risks of exploitation are well known. They represent 1% of the child population, but 37% of those in youth justice. Just 15% of those looked-after children receive GCSEs from C to A*, compared with the national average of 55%. However, I wish to focus on the child placement estate. It is a drier topic, but if we do not provide sufficient and safe accommodation for these children, then the rest is broadly redundant. I have personal experience of this area. Before being elected as an MP, I was a barrister often working in child protection law. Many Friday afternoons would be spent in court, seeking orders on an urgent basis for removal of children from their primary carer before the weekend. My work would be done once judgment had been given and I had drafted the order, but for my social work team, their work had only just begun. They would have to collect the children, often relying on the police to assist, and then, often late in the evening, the arduous task of attempting to find suitable accommodation for these children would begin. They would make calls late into the night, pleading with reluctant foster carers, or residential units, to take in these young people, who would often sit obediently at the local authority offices waiting for their fate to be decided. I have known of times when children slept on the floors of such offices while searches were being undertaken. The lack of sufficient accommo…
Won't the Bill's regional care co-operatives — bringing services together across local authorities to commission, recruit and build children's homes — help with exactly the accommodation problems you describe?Does he agree that provisions in the Bill for measures such as regional care co-operatives, which would agglomerate services—bring them together—across local authorities, to do some of the work of commissioning, recruiting and building up children’s homes would help with the problems that he describes?
- Your review contained provisions now in this legislation. The 2020 High Court judgment described a nationwide problem — a 15-year-old with 14 placements in 12 months, at serious risk of exploitation. Regional co-operation will add capacity, but we still lack a national plan and an accurate assessment of need; more than a fifth of children in care live over 20 miles from home, one was placed 500 miles away, and this has risen over 50% since 2019. Local authorities should have a statutory duty to plan ahead for sufficient placements.
My hon. Friend’s review, which he drew up before being elected to this place, contained some of the provisions that are now in this legislation, so he should be praised for that work. As I was saying, the High Court raised this issue in 2020. It took the unusual step of sending a judgment to the relevant Minister setting out the “nationwide problem” of demand outstripping supply in accommodation for children in care. The facts of that case show the human cost of a lack of investment and strategy. A 15-year-old girl, from a family unable to care for her, had had 14 different placements in 12 months. None was suitable. She had repeatedly fled unregulated accommodation units and was deemed to be at serious risk of self-harm and sexual exploitation. Those who have raised the important issue of child sexual exploitation but have shown no interest in children’s care services should hang their head in shame for trying to make political capital out of this very, very important issue. This Bill takes important steps in this regard. My hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) has already raised the important matter of regional co-operation, which will certainly add capacity. As has been mentioned, there is also the financial backdrop. I have no doubt that Ministers will be making representations to the Chancellor about the estimated £6.2 billion funding gap for local authorities in social care, but this is not just about money. Although capacity is undoubtedly required, the system also needs national and local leadership, and a national and local strategy. There remains, despite this very welcome Bill, a lack of a comprehensive and national plan for care placements. There is a lack of an overarching assessment of how this market will fulfil the functions necessary in the years and decades ahead. Bluntly, we will still not know what is needed and where across the nation. And we know from experience that the market will not do it for us; we have le…
Clause 7, introducing Staying Close support into the Children Act 1989, builds on our "Stable Homes, Built on Love" strategy and I welcome it — but supported lodgings should be named as a high-quality example of Staying Close, given the strong outcomes for the young people I've met. Will you let local authorities develop supported lodgings, extend corporate parenting to require a rent-deposit and guarantor scheme for care leavers, and rethink the home-schooling provisions, which feel like a hammer to crack a nut for the many parents doing an excellent job?Clause 7, which introduces proposed new section 23CZAA to the Children Act 1989 on Staying Close support, builds on the previous Conservative Government’s “Stable Homes, Built on Love” strategy. In particular, I refer to the pledge to strengthen the Staying Close offer and provide a statutory basis for it. I therefore welcome the commitment to this in the Bill, particularly the requirement of local authorities to provide suitable accommodation for formerly looked after children well into adulthood. At an event last year that I had the privilege to co-host, which was also attended by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who is no longer in her place, we heard from four young people—Tahir, Bella, William and Jess—who have all been supported by Home For Good and Safe Families in supported lodgings. Supported lodgings is where a young person stays with a family who provides them with life skills. There is more to it—I can explain another time—but those are the basics of it. All the young people shared powerful stories of how living within a household had enabled them to pursue education and work and given them a place to call home and, in some cases, as one described, a second family. How can supported lodgings help with the aims of staying close in this Bill? In October 2024, the “Voices of Supported Lodgings” was published, which had contributions from the four young people whom I have mentioned. It found that every Staying Close support category that is listed in the Bill has been proven to be provided by supported lodgings. On health and wellbeing, 84% of the young people reported that supported lodgings feels like home. On relationships, 89% had a good relationship with their host. On education, employment and training, young people in supported lodgings are 8% more likely to be in education and employment or training than other care leavers. And on participation in society, 90% of these young people felt more confi…
My constituents are concerned about the purpose of these changes. What additional information does the local authority actually need when a proper education is being received? Otherwise this looks like an unnecessary and intrusive intervention, and some clarity is required.I too had a number of representations from constituents who were concerned about the purpose behind these changes. What additional information do they elicit to the local authority when a proper education is being received? Does my hon. Friend agree that some clarity is required there, otherwise it just seems an unnecessary and intrusive intervention? Sometimes, those constituents asked questions about what the intent is behind the intervention of local authorities.
- I agree. The Bill demands a detailed explanation from parents of what they plan to do at home, which will hinder their teaching. It implies the state parents better than parents themselves and contradicts section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which affirms a parent's duty to secure education "by regular attendance at school or otherwise". Many home-educate because the state system failed their child, and this will add further stress to parents who have already fought long and hard.
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. The Bill is seeking a detailed explanation from parents of what they are planning to do at home with their children. Quite frankly, it will hinder the work that they are doing in educating those children. Schools are probably not readily providing some of that information either. I am concerned by the implication in the Bill that the state is better at parenting than parents themselves. The changes in the Bill directly contradict section 7 of the Education Act 1996, which affirms a parent’s legal duty to ensure that their children “receive efficient full-time education…either by regular attendance at school or otherwise.” That is important, because it underscores the principle that parents, not the state, hold primary responsibility for the education of their children, except in the minority of cases where there is harm or neglect. Let us not forget that many parents opt to home-school because the state system has failed their children. I urge caution with the provision in the Bill, which will add further stress to such parents, who have already had to fight long and hard for their children.
Is there a way, with reason on both sides, to strike a balance between safeguarding the right of responsible parents to home-school and preventing the abuse of children by parents with more sinister objectives?I applaud my hon. Friend for the point that she is making. I, too, have had representations from excellent home-schooling parents. Does she think that there is a way, with reason and understanding on both sides, for a balance to be struck between the need to safeguard the right of responsible parents to home-school their children and the need to prevent the abuse of children by parents who have other, more sinister, objectives?
- There has to be a middle ground. Most parents don't object to saying something about what they are doing, but requiring them to give chapter and verse to a local authority that may already have failed them is too much of a strike.
My right hon. Friend is correct. There has to be a middle ground that we could find. I suggest that we are using a hammer to crack a nut. A lot of these parents are not against having to say something about what they are doing, but to suggest that they have to give chapter and verse to their local authority, which in many cases will have failed them already—that relationship may well have broken down—feels like too much of a strike.
- These requirements risk hindering families who home-educate for legitimate reasons, often after SEND failures. Three questions for Ministers: is the evidence base for this part founded on accurate data and genuine need; what assessment has been made of the consequences for home-educating families' ability to provide tailored education; and will you protect home educators' rights and put children's wellbeing above administrative convenience?
I will make some progress, because I will not get any extra time for taking a further intervention. The requirements in the Bill therefore risk hindering families who, for legitimate reasons—often because of failures in the SEND provision that they needed—have opted to educate their children at home. I have three questions for Ministers. Will the Government confirm that the evidence base for this part of the Bill is founded on accurate data and genuine needs, which reflects the questions asked by my right hon. Friends the Members for Salisbury (John Glen) and for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis)? Secondly, what assessment has been made of the potential consequences of the Bill for home-educating families and their ability to provide a tailored high-quality education, and might we inadvertently hinder them in doing that? Thirdly, will the Government work to protect the rights of home educators and prioritise the wellbeing of children over administrative convenience? We have heard all sorts of contributions this afternoon on many topics, but as I said in my maiden speech, looked-after children are one of the key things that I wish to speak about. I believe very strongly in the rights of parents to choose what is best for their children. I really hope that the Government will listen to today’s contributions on both points, and that some amendments will be tabled in the next stage of scrutiny that would tighten up the Bill and make for an even better piece of legislation.
Having spent three years fighting for vulnerable children, I know this landmark Bill rights many wrongs — England spends 11 times more on late intervention, and early-intervention spending has fallen 44% since 2010. The Bill must extend Staying Close everywhere, and I urge confirmation that corporate parenting will be extended and that a national care-leaver offer follows. We should also finally give children equal protection from assault and battery: physical punishment has no positive outcomes, and Sara Sharif's father sought to justify her treatment as discipline — the time to end this injustice is now.I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education for bringing forward this landmark piece of genuinely transformational legislation. As someone who spent three years in the voluntary sector fighting for vulnerable children, I know that the Bill prioritises children and their needs, righting many of the wrongs of the last 14 years of failure under the Conservatives. The Bill signifies a much-needed movement towards preventive services, which were shamefully slashed by the Conservative party. Sure Start, with its huge impact on child development, disappeared. Youth services were decimated. Due to the huge cuts by the Conservative party, in England we spend 11 times more on late intervention, and spending on early intervention has fallen by 44% since 2010. The reforms laid out today, coupled with the funding needed to realise them properly, have the potential to ensure that, with the right support, more children can remain safely living with their birth families. The Bill should also ensure that when children need to live with foster parents or in a residential home, we are able to provide them with the best possible care. These children, after all, are the responsibility of the state. We are their parents, and we need to have the same high ambitions for them as we do for our own children. The recognition in the Bill that young people need more support when they first leave care must also be celebrated. The Bill will help to improve the situation by finally extending Staying Close to all areas of the country. That was a key recommendation of the independent review of children’s social care. That review also recommended extending corporate parenting principles, so that they apply not just to children’s services but to a greater range of public organisations. In November, the Government outlined that that important reform would be implemented. Will the Secretary of State confirm that extending corporate parenting responsibilities remains part of the Gove…
The British people want answers on the grooming-gang scandal. Will the Government deport all guilty foreign nationals and complicit family members, strip citizenship from implicated dual nationals, pause Pakistani visas and aid until deportees are accepted, and fully investigate officials who knew and failed to act? How many girls were raped, how many perpetrators are still walking the streets, and will you publish a full nationality and immigration-status breakdown of those convicted?Given that the Opposition amendment has been selected, I will not stand here and outline my disgust at what has happened with regard to the historic grooming gang scandal. The British people want answers, so I will ask questions of the Labour party, and several of them. Will the Government commit to deporting all guilty foreign nationals involved urgently, including family members who were aware of the crimes and therefore complicit? Wives, sisters, mothers and cousins, if they knew and said nothing, are just as guilty as the rapists themselves. Will the Government commit to stripping citizenship from dual nationals implicated and deport them as well? Race or religion must protect nobody. Will the Government commit to pausing all Pakistani visas and foreign aid into the country until the Pakistani Government agree to accept any of their deported citizens who have perpetrated these crimes on British soil, and imprison these rapists and their accomplices in Pakistan however they see fit? Will the Government undertake a full investigation into officials who had knowledge of these crimes yet failed to act? A specified taskforce to root out this evil should be established. We should not just fire these vile individuals but prosecute them. How many girls are estimated to have been raped? Is there a tally for the overall number of rapes? Horrifyingly, it may well be in the millions. We just do not know. How many vulnerable young girls are estimated to still be involved in these gangs? If there is no estimated figure, why not? Will a regular update be published detailing ongoing prosecutions and sentencing? Will the Government publish a full nationality breakdown of those convicted for such offences, along with the location of their crimes? How many known foreign rapists are there per town, per region? Will the Government publish a breakdown of the immigration status of those involved? On what grounds were they in the UK? Do they have previous convictions? How many foreign…
- How many re-offences have occurred since release, how many of these monsters walk the same streets as the girls they raped — one victim reportedly met her rapist in a supermarket — and how many of the foreign rapists were on state benefits?
I will carry on, if that is all right. How many re-offences have occurred since release? How many of these monsters are walking on the same streets as the girls they raped and abused? One report suggested that a victim came face to face with her rapist in the supermarket. Are the Government comfortable with that? How many of the foreign rapists were in receipt of any form of state benefit?
- How many children were born following these rapes, how many men used the child to remain in the UK, and how many deportations were blocked on family-life or ECHR grounds? Set up a confidential whistleblower process, release the court transcripts, and consider lifelong sentences for those who covered up the abuse. The mass rape of young white working-class girls by gangs of Pakistani men is a rotting stain on our nation — this is about the victims, not Elon Musk or any bandwagon.
I will carry on, if that is all right. How many who were released receive any state benefits? How many children have been born following a rape by those men? How many have been given access to the child against the mother’s wishes, and how many have used the child as a route to remain in the UK? Will the Government commit to preventing that in future? How many deportations have been blocked due to the rapist’s right to a family life or due to other European Court of Human Rights influences? Will the Government set up a dedicated, confidential and accessible official process for whistleblowers to safely raise their concerns about foreign rape gangs, ensuring that it is safe, secure and easy to find? Will the Government release all court transcripts relating to those cases so that the British people can understand just part of the horror for themselves? How many of those documents have been hidden due to the cost of release? That should not be an obstacle to the transparency of those trials. Will lifelong sentences be considered for British citizens involved in the crimes, and for those in positions of power who acted to cover up the scale of the abuse? Which politicians, local and national, had knowledge of the events but failed to act—again, going as far as actively concealing what was truly happening? Those are the facts that the British people want and deserve to know. All those questions have also been submitted in written form, and I look forward to receiving open and transparent answers. The mass rape of young white working-class girls by gangs of Pakistani rapists is a rotting stain on our nation. This is not about Elon Musk. This is not a bandwagon of the far right. This is about the victims and ensuring that swift and brutal justice is delivered to those demons responsible. It is about distinguishing between right and wrong.
I welcome this child-centred Bill, but I felt disgusted by the language we just heard — imagine being a survivor listening to that; please think about who hears our words. The Secretary of State said the Bill is a vital mechanism for tackling child sexual abuse, so which IICSA recommendations fall within it? IICSA asked for a single core dataset on victims and perpetrators, a child protection authority, a Cabinet Minister for child protection and a public-awareness campaign — and will you ringfence relationships, health and sex education training budgets, because teachers still lack adequate training?I welcome the Bill because it addresses a lot of the underlying problems we have in our schools and education and, indeed, in the protection of children. I welcome the Secretary of State’s commitment to make this a child-centred Bill. I feel disgusted by what the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Rupert Lowe) has just said. Can anyone imagine listening to that as a victim or a survivor? I am sure his intent is to get to the truth and get justice, but the language—I ask him please to think about who hears our words. On 26 November 2024, in her letter to the chair of the child safeguarding practice review panel, the Secretary of State for Education said: “The forthcoming Children’s Wellbeing Bill is a vital mechanism for improving the lives of vulnerable children… there is a renewed government focus on tackling child sexual abuse… which will necessarily include our response to the IICSA recommendations.” I want to take this opportunity to ask the Secretary of State which of those recommendations fall squarely within the Bill. I hope, with cross-party support, that we can encourage the Secretary of State to adopt them. The independent inquiry into child sexual abuse published 20 recommendations, trying to address the whole of child sexual abuse in this country, to get support for those victims and survivors and early intervention to prevent the crime, and to get the prosecutions we all desperately want. Recommendation 1 was that there should be a core dataset. Currently, the Bill’s single unique identifier number is not the same as a core dataset. There is a need for a unified set of data that allows authorities to understand better the prevalence of abuse, to identify patterns and to inform evidence-based policymaking. We have a patchy, fragmented data system that hinders effective prevention and intervention. IICSA asked for the creation of a single core dataset that includes the characteristics of victims and alleged perpetrators of child sexual abuse, vulnerability f…
A fantastic organisation in South Devon, Child Assault Prevention, had to close two years ago when the previous Government cut its funding — it was doing vital work teaching primary children how to recognise and avoid sexual assault. Will the Government look at reinstating funding for such organisations?A fantastic organisation in my South Devon constituency called Child Assault Prevention, which I worked with when I worked for Devon Rape Crisis, had to close its doors two years ago because its funding was cut by the previous Government. It was doing vital work with primary school children, teaching them about the dangers of sexual assault and how to avoid it. I would welcome the Government looking at reinstating funding to such organisations that are working with young children in this sensitive area.
- That work is so important. Recommendation 13 is mandatory reporting — but without resources it becomes a tick-box exercise that could penalise the very teachers protecting children. IICSA took seven years, cost £186 million, heard from over 6,000 victims, and its recommendations still aren't adopted. With deepest respect, I say to all those calling for a fresh national inquiry: put your energy into getting these recommendations adopted, because another inquiry means another decade of waiting when what we need is child protection right now.
I absolutely echo what the hon. Member says; that work is so important. Recommendation 13 is on mandatory reporting. I was keen to hear the Home Secretary say that it will be one of her objectives, but it also needs to cover those in all positions of trust. I am very concerned that if we have mandatory reporting without the resources for the administration to act on that, it becomes no more than a tick-box exercise, and that the very teachers and training staff who should be protecting children get penalised and, worse, prosecuted as a consequence? IICSA took seven years and cost £186 million. It had over 2 million pages of evidence and 725 witnesses. Over 6,000 victims and survivors put their trust in the process and gave evidence. They did all this and we spent all this money so that the recommendations would be implemented. There was also a Home Office report. Again, I spent a year of my life putting into the Home Office report in 2020, which gave the solutions. I spent two years in the IICSA inquiry specifically around grooming gangs. The recommendations have not been adopted. I say with the deepest respect to all those calling for a national inquiry to instead put all their energy into getting the recommendations adopted. With the best will in the world—you all know me; I am not making a party political point—another inquiry will mean another 10 years of waiting. What I want to see, and what I truly believe we all want to see, is child protection right now. I urge hon. Members please to consider what they are doing and to use Report as the time to make the amendments to get the changes they want.
There are two sides to this Bill — it could have been two — and the children's wellbeing side, with the Staying Close, fostering and kinship work, is good and commendable. But the schools side is a serious concern: it reads as dragging the excellent down rather than driving excellence. Clause 45 ends academy schools' freedom on teacher pay, and the idea they use it for anything but attracting the specialists their pupils need is crazy.There are two sides to the Bill. Indeed, it could easily have been two Bills, and it may have made for stronger legislation had it been dealt with as two Bills. I commend the Government on one aspect, which is children’s wellbeing, and so much that is part of the Bill is good and commendable. It is wonderful to see the building up of the work being done on the Staying Close programme, which is already demonstrating positive results, and the evidence shows the impact it has on people’s lives. I was delighted to see that much of the work undertaken by the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) when he was commissioned to do the report under the last Government has been embraced and is being taken as part of it and being built upon. I am also delighted about the work done on fostering and kinship care, which we know have such a positive impact on the lives of so many young people—it is good to see that in the Bill. However, the other side of the Bill, on schools, is cause for very serious concern. The Government have said: “The current discrepancy between maintained schools and academies leaves potential for inconsistencies in education standards, opportunities and outcomes for pupils from different types of schools.” That is an interesting point. Looking through the clauses, it seems to be not about driving excellence in our schooling system, but about dragging the excellent down. I will take this chance to go through some of those clauses—and perhaps even the Ministers might take the time to familiarise themselves with them. Clause 45 ends academy schools’ freedom on teacher pay. The idea that academy schools are using that freedom to do anything other than attract the teachers and specialists that they need to get the best for their pupils is crazy.
Some multi-academy trusts offer sick pay after six weeks only a little above the statutory minimum — if a teacher falls seriously ill, they should have the same protections as any other teacher.Some multi-academy trusts offer terms and conditions on sick pay after six weeks that are only a little above the statutory minimum. If one of their teachers falls seriously ill, they should have access to the same protections available to any other teacher.
- The Bill removes academies' ability to do more for teachers — the Ark trust pays 2.5% above every national pay point. Clause 50 gives the adjudicator power over admission numbers, which will stop the best schools expanding to offer more children places, just as numbers start to decline. And Clause 44 repeals the requirement to turn failing schools into academies, with no clarity on what happens to them and Ofsted's powers watered down.
The Bill removes academies’ ability to do more for teachers. The Ark academy trust, for example, pays its teachers an average of 2.5% more than every national pay point. Where academies have areas of specialism, they have used them as an opportunity to pay more and bring the best teachers in. As we progress through the Bill, clause 50 gives the schools adjudicator the power the set public admission numbers for schools, including academies, giving local authorities greater influence over admission numbers for schools in their areas. In reality, that will mean that the very best schools lose out on the ability to expand rapidly and offer more children the opportunity to go there. That is increasingly important at a time when overall student numbers are starting to decline. The best schools have less opportunity to offer more spaces to pupils in their communities. Clause 44 repeals the requirement to turn failing local authority schools into academies. There is already a great deal of ambiguity about failing schools. What will the Government do about them? That has not been made clear. Ofsted’s powers have been watered down, which will mean that failing schools continue to exist and there will be no change.
- Don't Ministers need to set out how failing schools will be tackled? We cannot leave children in schools that let them down without immediate action — which is exactly what the academies programme addressed.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ministers must set out how failing schools will be tackled? We cannot have a system in which children are left in schools that let them down without immediate action. That is what the academies programme sought to address.
- Correct — there is total silence on failing schools. The Government's instinct is to get rid of excellence: they've scrapped the Latin excellence programme and cadet expansion that lifted attainment for disadvantaged children. They want a homogeneous system where brilliance is stamped out and Whitehall is master. This Bill is about dumbing down, not raising aspiration.
My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. There is total silence on what will happen. There is no sense that where a school is failing, action will be taken to ensure that successful academy trusts take over those schools and drive improvements. What we have heard from the Government since they came into office has been about getting rid of excellence. I was very proud of a number of the programmes that we introduced, such as the Latin excellence programme or more cadet forces in schools. The evidence points to the fact that those things had a real impact on children’s attainment, and often for children from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. Those programmes have just been scrapped. There is a sense that the Government want a homogeneous schools system in which brilliance and excellence, and the freedom for teachers and schools to deliver the very best for their pupils, are stamped out. There is a sense that Ministers know best—that Whitehall is the master—and that that will drive our education system forward. Many aspects of the Bill are positive in relation to children’s wellbeing, but I urge the Minister to consider the other aspects that will systemically destroy the progress made by both Labour and Conservative Governments in driving forward academic excellence, and in allowing state schools to offer some of the things that private schools offer, which they had not been able to do before. At my comprehensive school, joining a cadet force or learning Latin were simply not options. The Bill is about dumbing down. It is not about raising aspiration; it is not about raising excellence.
Actually this Bill will give every child the best possible start. Like the right hon. Member I went to a comprehensive, and I believe state education should be excellent — every teacher I've spoken to who has read the Bill supports it, so let's listen to them. The Government will bring a mental health worker into every school; it isn't in this Bill because it's a Health matter, but it will transform that area.Actually, the Bill will ensure that every child growing up in this country will have the best possible start in life, and will break down the barriers to opportunity. Like the right hon. Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), I went to a comprehensive, and I believe that comprehensive, state-run education should be excellent—that is why I support the Bill. Every teacher I spoke to before the election was cheesed off with what was happening in education. They were so depressed about what they were doing—that is one of the reasons I got involved in this. Every teacher I have spoken to who has read the Bill supports it. Surely we should be listening to them. Colleagues have mentioned mental health. The Government will bring a mental health worker into every school. That is not in this Bill, because it is a matter for the Department of Health and Social Care, but it will transform that area.
- You just said the Government would bring a mental health worker into every school — could you repeat that, for the avoidance of doubt?
The hon. Gentleman just said that the Government would bring a mental health worker into every school. Could he repeat that, for the avoidance of doubt?
- That is our manifesto commitment — a child in my constituency waited six months for treatment after a suicide attempt at school under the last Government, and that is not acceptable. Focusing on Clause 22 and free breakfast clubs: as a GP for 30 years I know we cannot learn when hungry, 10% of reception children and 22% of year-6 children are obese, and breakfast clubs help. But beware the food industry lobby — there is no such thing as a free breakfast — and we should move towards universal free school meals, with auto-enrolment in the meantime to reach 400,000 more children.
That is our manifesto commitment. One reason I am here is that, under the last Tory Government, a child in my constituency had to wait six months for treatment following a suicide attempt at school, and that is simply not acceptable. On the review of the curriculum, every teacher I have spoken to has said that we need to improve the arts and music, which would in itself improve wellbeing. Rather less controversially, I will concentrate on clause 22 and the provision of free breakfast clubs. I have been a GP for the past 30 years, and I understand that health and education are inextricably linked—we cannot learn when we are hungry. Free breakfast clubs will ensure that every child, irrespective of their background, has the foundation they need to start the day. There is strong evidence that obesity is a massive problem harming the wellbeing of our children. Some 10% of children entering reception are obese, and in year 6, 22% are obese. Free breakfast clubs will reduce those numbers. In Stroud, we have been working really closely with local primary schools to get nutritious local food into the school diet, not relying on national companies to do so. We have a commitment to try to procure 50% of that food from the local agricultural community; I am very proud of that, and keen to encourage it. Another point about breakfast clubs is that it is really important that children eat together—that is what we used to do at our primary school. It fosters a feeling of wellbeing, and the Long Table in Stroud is an organisation that encourages that. We need to be careful of the food industry lobby, which is incredibly powerful and has been providing free food for breakfast clubs. All I would say is that there is no such thing as a free breakfast. Companies are trying to promote their own products, and we must be very wary of them. There is quite a lot of evidence that free school meals reduce obesity, and I would support their universal roll-out, not just in Wales and London. In…
Sara Sharif's death shocked us all — her legacy should be that she is the last vulnerable child killed by people who should have protected her. I welcome the multi-agency approach in part 1, but we should go further and protect children from assault, because "reasonable punishment" left undefined makes it hard for social workers to act. So many child deaths are of babies, and the reduced role of health visitors has cost us. On schools, I'm disappointed there is nothing for SEND, and on the register I ask: confirm a school cannot refer a family to social services simply for choosing home education, and protect parents fleeing domestic abuse, for whom requiring both parents' permission is impossible.Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will go as quickly as I can, because I had timed my speech to five minutes. The death of Sara Sharif shocked us all. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) said before recess, we have the opportunity to change the law so that her legacy is to be “the last vulnerable child to be killed by people who should have looked after her.”—[Official Report, 18 December 2024; Vol. 759, c. 312.] We often recall the names of Victoria Climbié and baby Peter Connelly, but so many more children and babies have been the innocent victims of evil parents and family members, neglectful professionals and siloed systems. Their memories should be etched on our hearts as we consider this Bill. I welcome the moves in part 1 of the Bill to strengthen the multi-agency approach, but I agree with the Children’s Commissioner and the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato) that we should go further in protecting children from assault. Some of the injuries inflicted on children such as Sara Sharif under the guise of reasonable punishment have been beyond belief, but if “reasonable punishment” is not defined in law, that must make it very difficult for some social workers to take the appropriate action. I have been shocked by just how many of the child deaths reported are of babies—infants who have not reached school or nursery and whose voices are literally unheard. I worry that the role of the health visitor in the lives of new parents has been so greatly reduced. As a new mum, I would join other parents at regular weigh-in sessions and playgroups alongside health visitors, right through to when my child started nursery. GPs in my constituency of Mid Dorset and North Poole have told me that they would previously liaise with the health visitors in their surgeries to warn families who were at risk—perhaps a mum had come in for a smear test and they were worried about domestic abuse, or a father had come in and they were worried about alcohol abuse. The…
- Limiting branded uniform items will be hugely welcomed by parents in Congleton working two jobs to make ends meet, as will free breakfast clubs — and I want children with SEND able to access them, plus toothbrushing rolled out in breakfast clubs. My favourite thing about the Bill is its commitment to every child in every school. The single identifier should be used to track the educational outcomes of children in temporary accommodation, who repeatedly lose their school place when they lose their home; and to home-schooling parents, this is not about penalising you, it's about protecting children already identified as extremely vulnerable.
There are so many fantastic provisions in this Bill that it is quite hard to know where to start. However, the first thing I want to say is that the move to restrict the number of branded school uniform items will, I know, be so welcomed by parents in my Congleton constituency. So many of them who have spoken to me are struggling and finding it really very difficult to make ends meet, as they have done for many years. I have spoken to parents who are working two jobs and desperately trying to put food on the table. I know that those parents will also strongly welcome the provision of free breakfast clubs. I have spoken to the Secretary of State about the importance of children with special educational needs being able to access those breakfast clubs and holiday provision. I know she looked at that in the pilot of free breakfast clubs, and I we will continue to emphasise it. The other thing I would like to mention about free breakfast clubs is toothbrushing, which we certainly talked about during the general election. I believe there are pilots for toothbrushing in breakfast clubs, and I would love to see that rolled out widely. Toothbrushing is so crucial, and working parents who drop children off early of course find it difficult to ensure that their children’s teeth are brushed before school. It is best done every day, so I would welcome our extending that as far as possible. My favourite thing about the Bill is that it really demonstrates our commitment to all the children in our communities, in all schools, having the best possible opportunities, both because it is morally imperative and because the education of today is the national productivity of the workforce tomorrow. We all have to keep that in the front of our minds, and I know that the Minister absolutely does. I would like to say one or two things about the identifier system we are bringing in with this Bill. Many colleagues have referred to some horrific situations that this seeks to avoid, and to the…
Much will revolve around the quality of professional practice the Bill leads to, not just what we put into law, and we should thank the social workers, police and medical staff who give us one of the safest child protection systems in the world. There's much to welcome — family group decision-making and virtual headteachers — but the Bill creates a duty on local authorities to bring education to the table without a reciprocal duty on schools, nurseries and childminders to participate, so the guidance must make that obligation clear. I want a clear assurance the Government will close the reasonable-chastisement loophole, and on a national inquiry, we must recognise the diversity and complexity of perpetrators and victims if we are to deal with this effectively.My interest in this all started when I became a governor of the second school ever to become an academy, back in the late 1990s. I then spent some time with the former Director of Public Prosecutions on improving the practice of prosecuting rape gangs and child sexual abusers in the early 2010s. What all that demonstrated to me was that much will revolve around the quality of the professional practice that the Bill leads to, rather than what we put into law in this Parliament. We can debate many things that we want to see improved, but it is important that we recognise and thank the social workers, police officers and medical staff who currently ensure that we in the UK have one of the most effective and safest child protection systems of any nation in the world. It is important to acknowledge that. As many Members have said, there is much in the Bill that Conservative Members will welcome. For example, the implementation of family group decision making, building on the family group conferencing model, and the work to build on the success that virtual headteachers have had in driving up attainment and ensuring that children in care are now among the best school attenders of any group of children in our country, are to be commended. In particular, in the case of proposed new section 16EB on bringing partnerships together, the working together guidance that was last updated in 2023 will have to do a lot of heavy lifting to ensure that the aspirations we set out work in practice, particularly in respect of education. The main purpose of the Bill is to create a responsibility for local authorities to bring education to the table, but it does not go so far as to create a duty or obligation on schools, nurseries and childminders to participate reciprocally. That has been an issue for a long time in our system. It was an issue with area child protection committees, local safeguarding children boards and local safeguarding partnerships, so we must ensure that we get it righ…
It saddens me to make this contribution, because three things worry me: forcing academies onto the national curriculum, harmonising teacher pay, and the pathway for failing schools. When I was elected in 1997 two of my four secondary schools were in London's bottom 5%; now my three academies are all rated outstanding, and Ofsted credits Harris Academy Merton's tailored "aspirational curriculum". Forcing them onto the national curriculum risks undermining what made them succeed. And making academisation discretionary for failing schools will bring judicial reviews, pressure on councils and prolonged uncertainty — born of 27 years' experience, I say do not put that at risk.It saddens me to make this contribution. Three main aspects of the Bill are of particular concern to me: the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum; the harmonisation of teachers’ pay across academies and maintained schools; and the pathway for future failing schools. When I was elected in 1997, two of our four secondary schools were in the bottom performing 5% of schools in London, and London was the worst region in the country. Today we have three academies—Harris Academy Merton, Harris Academy Morden, and St Mark’s Academy—and I am delighted to tell the House that they are all Ofsted-rated “outstanding”. I wish to thank the principals, Julian Sparks, Aisha Samad, Hannah Fahey and their teams for all their efforts. According to Ofsted’s latest inspection report, one of the keys to the success of Harris Academy Merton is its “aspirational curriculum”—its version of our national curriculum that is flexible and tailored to pupils’ individual needs. Ofsted stated that teachers at the academy were able to carefully consider what pupils needed to learn, and the right time for pupils to revisit that knowledge. That is a proven recipe for success, not just at Harris Academy Merton but in academies across England. I struggle to see how removing the right to a carefully tailored education will benefit students who need the additional support that such an education provides. Forcing schools such as Harris academy to teach the national curriculum risks undermining one of the keys to their success. I have serious concerns about the proposal to change the pathway for turning around failing schools. I know from bitter personal experience that any change to the status of a school can become highly political. The current system, in which failing schools automatically become academies, provides clarity and de-politicisation, and ensures a rapid transition. I fear that making that process discretionary would result in a large increase in judici…
- I will vote for the reasoned amendment and against the Bill — not only for the catastrophic damage to the academy movement, but because it fails to take the chance for a national inquiry dedicated to child rape and grooming gangs. Victims want action now, but they also want answers, and there is real misunderstanding about Professor Jay's inquiry, which was an all-encompassing umbrella inquiry on child sexual exploitation.
I will vote for the reasoned amendment and against the Bill, not only because of the catastrophic damage that the Bill will do to the academy movement, as so amply explained by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), but because it fails to take the opportunity for a national public inquiry dedicated to the child rape and grooming scandal. Yes, victims and survivors want action now, but they also want answers. I fear that there is a great misunderstanding and misinformation about the previous national inquiry led by Professor Jay. That was an all-encompassing umbrella inquiry on child sex exploitation.
- Wasn't there a two-year inquiry on organised networks and sexual exploitation — grooming gangs, in the language of inquiry? The chief executive of NAPAC urged the Government to focus on delivering improvements rather than new inquiries that may delay action further.
Does the hon. Member agree that there was a two-year inquiry on organised networks and sexual exploitation, which is grooming gangs, in the language of inquiry? The chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood said: “we urge the Government to focus on delivering improvements… rather than proposing new inquiries that may potentially delay action even further”.
- Professor Jay's inquiry was overarching and its references to grooming gangs were minuscule — it mentioned only Rotherham, yet there are dozens of mostly Labour-led towns where horrific things happened. Victims want action and answers, and in this great nation we can deliver both in parallel: implement the Jay recommendations, but keep exploring specific towns for public confidence.
I shall come to the hon. Lady’s point, but the reality is that Professor Jay’s inquiry was an overarching one, and its references to grooming gangs were minuscule. It mentioned only Rotherham, but we know that there are dozens of towns—primarily Labour-led towns—where horrific things have taken place. Victims and survivors want not only action but answers. This is an opportunity for both. The hon. Lady referred to the need for action, but surely, in this great nation of ours, we can ensure both, in parallel. We can say, “Yes, these actions are required, following the recommendations of the Jay inquiry, but alongside that, for continuing public confidence and to get the answers that victims and survivors want, we need to keep exploring in specific towns.”
- The inquiry you seek was part of the overarching one — there were 12 separate inquiries, one lasting two years that produced a 185-page report specific about grooming gangs. We know the perpetrators, the model and the victims. What we want is prosecution and support for victims, not more information.
The inquiry the hon. Gentleman seeks was part of the overarching inquiry. There were 12 separate inquiries. One of them lasted two years, and resulted in a 185-page report that was specific about grooming gangs. What more information do we need? We know who the perpetrators are, we know the model and we know the victims. What we want is prosecution, and support for the victims.
- You're right that where we know the victims, they want prosecutions — but in many towns the perpetrators are unknown and the truth has not been exposed, and many councils have a vested interest in not digging into their own failings. That is why we need a national inquiry dedicated to this — and let's be ambitious and do it in a year, town by town, to restore the British people's confidence.
The hon. Lady is quite right that the victims and survivors, where we know them, want answers, action and prosecution, but I regret to say that there are many towns where people do not know the perpetrators and the truth has not been exposed. The reality is that many councils have a vested interest in not digging into the truth, because it will expose the failings of their councillors and officers. That is why we must have a national inquiry dedicated to this horrific issue. We should be ambitious and say that it does not need to take three, five or seven years, for heaven’s sake. Let us do it in one year, and get it done. Let us have the appropriate number of people inquiring into town after town, examine the results, and get the answers. That is what will restore the confidence of the British people—action immediately, and answers within a year or so. Surely, as a nation, we can do this.
I met my constituent Claire Throssell, whose sons Jack and Paul were killed by their domestically abusive father on a permitted contact visit — most such children remain nameless, but we must not forget them; Women's Aid found 19 children killed through unsafe contact between 2005 and 2015. Sara Sharif's name we know too well. This Bill will protect children like Sara through the single unique identifier and better information sharing across education, social work and police. But fulfilling Claire's promise to her boys also means changing the law to remove the family courts' presumption in favour of contact, added to the Children Act 1989 by the Children and Families Act 2014, which lets known abusers have contact with their children.I first met my constituent Claire Throssell at a remembrance service at my old secondary school in Penistone. Every year, the headteacher marks the deaths of Claire’s sons, former pupils Jack and Paul Sykes, who died at the hands of their father, known to be domestically abusive, in a house fire that he started while on a permitted contact visit. The names of most of the children who have been murdered at the hands of their domestically abusive parents in the decades since Claire’s boys were killed remain unspoken, but we must not forget them. Women’s Aid research found that between 2005 and 2015, 19 children, including Jack and Paul, had been killed as a result of unsafe contact with abusive parents. Those children have to remain nameless to avoid causing further distress to their families. Many more deaths will have followed, uncounted and unrecalled. The number of children at risk may be on an even higher scale; in the year to March 2024, in England and Wales, 215,640 “child in need” social care case assessments identified that either a child or parent was experiencing domestic abuse. One name is sadly known to us only too well: Sara Sharif. Her tragic death makes the need for action on this issue all the more poignant, the sentencing of her murderers having taken place just before Christmas. The Bill will help protect children like Sara. It will create a safer, higher-quality education system for every child, and will introduce a register of children who are not in school, to help ensure that no child falls through the gaps when home-educated. Our Government are taking strong action in response to Sara’s death through the Bill’s establishment of a single unique identifier for children, and the introduction of new duties that will improve information sharing across and within agencies, bringing together multi-agency child protection teams from education, social work and the police. I commend the Secretary of State for Education for bringing forward a Bill so tran…
- I'll make progress. The Bill will embed child-centred government in education and social care, and there must be parallel work to put children first in the family courts — that piece of the jigsaw will complement it. I commend the Bill to the House.
No, I will make progress. The Bill will implement child-centred government, emphatically embedding it in education and children’s social care, and there must be parallel work to put children first in the family courts. That important piece of the jigsaw puzzle will complement the Bill. I commend the Bill to this House. It takes a landmark approach to safeguarding children at risk, and I am proud to support it.
I support our reasoned amendment, but I want to speak to two positive measures: the register of children not in school, which builds on our previous work and will stop children being lost or hidden, and the teacher-training clauses. In implementing the register, consult SEN charities — Ambitious about Autism makes the case it should hold more profile data disaggregated by primary need, so schools and councils can tailor support to get autistic children, especially those with pathological demand avoidance, back to school.I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for all the work that she has done on child sexual abuse. I want to speak on two limited measures in the Bill: first, the registration of children not in school, a positive measure that builds on the work of the previous Government; and secondly, the clauses on teacher training. We know from our casework that the measure on a register is positive and will play a big role in ensuring that children are not lost or hidden in the system. In implementing and applying the measure, I urge the Government to consult with SEN charities and organisations, particularly organisations working with autistic kids and families. Ambitious about Autism makes the case that the register should contain more data on the profile of children not at school, disaggregated by primary need. It is vital for autistic children and families that we put on a clear footing the expectation that there will be detailed profile data, so that schools and councils can offer more tailored support in getting them back to school. Children with pathological demand avoidance require a completely different approach when it comes to negotiating school entry, and we must ensure that their needs are met with patience and understanding.
- Many home-educated children with autism are already known to local authorities but get very poor support — how will this burdensome, expensive register transform the support they need rather than being just another bureaucratic exercise?
My right hon. Friend will be aware that although many home-educated children with autism are known to local authorities, there is very poor support for them. How will this burdensome, expensive register—it will be even more expensive if he has his way—transform the support that children need, rather than being just another bureaucratic exercise that continues the current woeful level of support?
- I support the register, but more rules risk penalising families of autistic children through fines and stricter requirements that add to their stress — why fine parents doing all they can to get their child into school? For autistic children, especially those with a PDA profile, harsher registration rules can deepen trauma and worsen school refusal. A better understanding of autism, supported by autism training in initial teacher training and CPD for all staff, is key to getting these children back to school.
I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention, but I make clear my support for the register. The other aspect to having more rules and regulation for families of autistic children is the inadvertent risk of penalising those families through fines and the imposition of stricter rules, which will obviously add to the harm and stress that they often face. I urge Ministers and civil servants to reflect on that. Why should those parents be fined if they are doing all they can to get their children into school? Even more problematic is the fact that for autistic kids, the clearer, firmer and harsher rules—even with all the good intent that I believe there is—can add further trauma and make school entry even more difficult. That already happens with registration. Schools are rightly under pressure from Government to ensure that children get to school on time. However, parents of autistic children, particularly with a PDA profile, have done amazingly well to get their children to the school gate at all, and the total focus on registration at a certain time of day at all costs risks school refusal and, ultimately, children missing education. Both Ambitious about Autism and the Children’s Commissioner’s report on support for autism and other conditions argue that a much better understanding of the different aspects of autism is key to getting children back to school. At the heart of this matter are parents. Time after time, parents of autistic children are judged and challenged because schools and authorities assume that the issue is behaviour or bad parenting, or that the issue has a very simple cause. Making sure the measures in the Bill have a deeper understanding of what those families and kids are going through is absolutely vital. The teaching measures will help. I again point to the work of the previous Government, supported by the Autism Society, making positive strides to introduce autism training in initial teacher training. The more that individual teacher tra…
Every child matters — that's why I came into politics — and I welcome the Bill's first steps on the cost of living. A child's wellbeing doesn't exist in a vacuum: in Bury North 42% of children live in absolute poverty, dense and compounded, and poverty can no longer just be glanced at.I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill and wish to speak to the cost of living impact it begins to address. Every child matters: not just political guidance, but an ideal to live by and to come into politics for. I therefore welcome the first steps that the Bill represents: steps towards a change in the security and fortunes of all young people in Bury and Britain. Ensuring the wellbeing of a child and the whereabouts of a child in Bury North has been one of my main priorities as an MP. It is also why I have long championed, both in this Parliament and in my previous time in this place, improvements to the appalling state of the special educational needs system. A child’s wellbeing, or their vulnerability, does not exist in a vacuum. It is tied to the conditions they grow up in. In Bury North we confront a grim reality: 42% of children in Bury North are living in absolute poverty. Poverty must no longer simply be glanced at by our politics. We must reach into it. It is a concentrated poverty—dense, multiple and compounded.
- I won't give way. This is a poverty where one mile between postcodes can mean a seven-year gap in life expectancy, showing in squalid housing and children unaccounted for or not in school. Common-sense uniform rules will save over £50 a child and free breakfast clubs up to £450 a year per child, helping working parents make their hours. But this Bill is only the beginning — we must tackle the roots, not just the symptoms, and we will not let the Conservative inheritance stop us.
I will not. It is a poverty that has crept up on us faster and faster in recent years, where one mile’s difference between postcodes can mean as much as a seven-year gap in life expectancy. It shows itself in poor, squalid housing, too few teachers in schools, a lack of accessible public or social services, an absence in quality public transport, the scourge of antisocial behaviour, victims of unpunished criminality, and even worse streets than the better-off wards are rightly animated by. Worse still is the poverty of opportunity, with children unaccounted for or not attending school at all. I strongly support the Bill’s first moves to ease the burdens faced by so many families, by cutting the cost of children going to school. Common sense on school uniforms will save parents more than £50 a child on the back-to-school shop. Free breakfast clubs for all primary school children will save hard-pressed parents up to £450 a year per child. Critically, that can help working parents to make their hours. The ambitions of the Government go well beyond what the Bill starts. Eyes and expectations will turn to the child poverty taskforce and its recommendations, as well as the future work of this Parliament. We need to tackle the roots of these experiences, not just the symptoms. The Government are determined to transform the lives of children, with structural, strategic changes to life in Bury and Britain. It has been done before: Sure Start, the Building Schools for the Future programme, the maintenance allowance, the power of progressive social policies, the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child’s life, foundation learning, and, yes, phonics and choice. We will not let the inheritance from the Conservative party stop us. This will be a period of renewal and hope. Bury North’s poorest are failed by living down the road from those doing just all right; another town overlooked and underserved by funding formulas that have only ever glanced at the place and its problem…
- I challenge anyone opposing a national inquiry to name a single Jay recommendation that cannot be implemented if we also hold one — it really is a matter of "and". This is a Bill in two parts: I support most of the safeguarding half, but the schools half is the wrecking element. Why strip academies of pay flexibility instead of, as Sir Dan Moynihan suggests, extending those freedoms to maintained schools? The Secretary of State called competition "harmful", yet in Hull the academies programme ended generation after generation of failure and transformed outcomes — the OECD PISA tables show English education is immensely better.
It is a pleasure to take part in the debate. Let me begin with the question of the need for a national inquiry into the rape grooming gangs. Given what has been said so far, I challenge colleagues who have opposed the inquiry to name a single proposal from the Jay report that cannot be implemented if we go ahead with it. It really is a matter of “and”. Notwithstanding the political theatre that Labour Members have tried to bring to the debate, the fact that both the Prime Minister and the safeguarding Minister have said that they are open-minded suggests that—sensibly, from a policy point of view and politically—the Labour party may move to the correct position. As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), this is a Bill in two parts, which could probably most usefully have been two separate Bills. The first half concerns safeguarding, and, for the most part, my party and I support it; the second concerns schools, and that we most certainly cannot support. Rather than accusing our amendment of being a wrecking amendment, as the Liberal Democrats have rather disappointingly done, they should recognise that the second half of the Bill—the schools element—is the wrecking element, because it makes the important safeguarding improvements part of a Bill that cannot be genuinely supported in this House. There is a troubling theme; a misguided notion that the bureaucrat knows best, as colleagues have suggested—for instance, the proposal to strip academies of the flexibility to set competitive pay for their staff. If the Government were genuinely interested in the levelling up that has just been referred to by the hon. Member for Bury North (James Frith), why not, as Sir Dan Moynihan, perhaps the nation’s most successful headteacher and trust runner, said at lunch time today, give those academy freedoms to maintained schools? Why rip away the elements that have been used by academies to produce schools su…
In East Leeds, families and children have struggled for a decade. Shouldn't the Bill's measures to cut uniform costs and provide free breakfast clubs be warmly welcomed by all of us who care about children and families in our communities?The right hon. Gentleman is making various remarks about what he considers to be the failings and deficiencies of this excellent Bill. May I invite him to reflect on the fact that in my constituency, East Leeds, families and children have been really struggling over the last decade? The measures in the Bill to bring down the cost of school uniforms and provide free breakfast clubs in primary schools should be warmly welcomed and supported by all of us who care about children and families in our communities.
- No one is against the principle of breakfast clubs or stopping excessive charges, though we need to look at the specifics — but that's not what I was talking about. I ask Labour Members to reflect on the speech by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden before they go into Committee, because she knows of what she speaks.
No one can be against the principle of breakfast clubs and efforts to make sure that families do not have excessive charges imposed on them by schools, although we need to look at the specifics. That has nothing to do with what I was saying. I ask the hon. Gentleman, and indeed other Labour Members, to reflect on the speech made by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). I chaired the Education Committee from 2010 to 2015, and she and the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Sir Nicholas Dakin), who is on the Front Bench, were distinguished members of that Committee.
- This Bill is a chance to reset children's social care, so that's my focus. Having chaired the independent review for the last Government, I make recommendations the Bill delivers: shifting from crisis intervention, a more expert-led child protection system, unlocking family networks, and a care system that builds lifelong loving relationships. I find it extraordinary that people sent here to be problem-solvers are using this debate to be problem-exploiters instead — we have stacks of heartbreaking evidence from thousands of victims, and our job is to listen and act, not exploit when the politics suits us.
I welcome this Bill because it is a chance to make progress on resetting the children’s social care system in England, and that is where I will focus my remarks. Children’s social care is a special endeavour. It is a collection of kin, professionals and volunteers who seek to provide safe, stable and loving homes for children right across our country. They are the most important foundations for any child growing up—the foundations of family, of a tribe and of a sense of identity. Having chaired the independent review of children’s social care commissioned by the last Government, I have had the opportunity to spend time listening to thousands of people with direct experience of the system, and to make a number of recommendations on which I believe the legislation put forward today will deliver. One is about shifting away from late-stage crisis intervention, and another is about creating a sharper focus on a more expert-led child protection system. My other recommendations include unlocking the potential of family networks as an alternative to the care system, and moving away from a care system that breaks, rather than builds lifelong, loving relationships. As somebody who has led an independent review for the Government that looked at a serious matter, which included engaging with and speaking to victims of sexual abuse and criminal abuse, I find it extraordinary that people who are sent to Parliament to be problem solvers are using this debate to be problem exploiters instead. We have stacks of evidence. We have had thousands of victims of sexual abuse provide heartbreaking and very painful evidence and testimony over many years, and it is our job to listen and to act, not to exploit at moments when the politics may be in our favour.
In my constituency 32% of secondary children are persistently absent — some home-schooled, some simply lost to the system. These are vulnerable children, and this Bill is about protecting them. Isn't voting against it playing politics with the protection of vulnerable children?In my constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, 32% of secondary school children are persistently absent from school. Some are home-schooled, but some are lost to the system without support. These are vulnerable children. This Bill is about protecting vulnerable children. Does my hon. Friend agree that voting against this Bill is playing politics with the protection of vulnerable children?
- I completely agree, and if Members were serious they'd table amendments delivering IICSA's recommendation rather than repeat the whole process. Three measures stand out. Family group decision-making at pre-proceedings stage has sound evidence behind it — a trial showed it would mean 2,000 fewer children entering care each year and free £150 million for earlier support. The multi-agency child protection teams must be matched by professional expertise, supporting social workers through the early-career framework. And the unique child identifier, long overdue, will blow away the fog of partial information sharing — alongside regional co-operation to recruit the foster carers we desperately need.
I completely agree. I have a huge amount of respect for the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who shared his comments a while ago, but if he and other Members were serious about this matter, they would table amendments to deliver on IICSA’s recommendation not to go through the process again. I will speak briefly about three particular measures in the Bill. First, it is welcome that we have proposals for family group decision making to be made compulsory at pre-proceedings stage, because there is very sound evidence that it works. A randomised control trial undertaken a few years ago shows that if family group decision making, in the form of a family group conference, was provided at pre-proceedings stage across England, 2,000 fewer children would enter care each year, and it would free up £150 million for earlier support for families. As local authorities start to deliver on the new requirement, it is extremely important that we do not just make it a tick-box exercise, and that we ensure that the evidence and practice guidance is there to support local authorities to deliver in a way that will be most effective. Secondly, the Bill will create multi-agency child protection teams. These teams will fuse together—at an operational level, rather than just a strategic level—the relevant agencies needed to share information and then act on it to protect children from significant harm. It is important that, as well as getting the structure right, we focus on the professional expertise required to do the task of child protection, which is often so challenging. We too often leave newbie social workers with the most challenging task of assessing significant harm by themselves. We do not ask the police to do that—we often send police officers out in pairs—and it is important that we support social workers on their route to expertise through the early-career framework, so that the most expert are making these challenging judgments on significant har…
Calderdale council gave foster carers a council tax break, which has been incredibly effective at recruiting them. Would ideas like that be a good way to get more people into the system?Calderdale council took the innovative step of giving foster carers a council tax break, which has been incredibly effective in recruiting foster carers. Would this and other such ideas be a good way to get more people into the system?
- I completely agree we must do far more to recruit and retain foster carers. I urge Ministers to use the new power to create regional care co-operatives at pace — last year 132,000 households expressed interest in fostering but only 1,800 were approved; following the best voluntary-sector agencies we could approve 15,000 a year.
I completely agree that we need to do an awful lot more to support the recruitment and retention of foster carers. Ministers have shown reforming zeal with this measure to provide the Secretary of State with powers to create regional care co-operatives across the country. If the Bill is passed, I urge Ministers to use this new power at pace and with boldness so that we can create the extra foster homes we need. If we follow the example of really effective fostering agencies in the voluntary sector, we could approve 15,000 new foster carers each year, rather than the 1,800 we approve at the moment. I welcome these transformational changes and commend the Government for introducing the Bill so early. I look forward to supporting its passage.
As a former director of the New Schools Network, I'm proud of the improvements over 14 years — English children are the best readers in the west, and on PISA we've risen to 11th in maths, 13th in science and 13th in reading. The magic formula, championed by Blair, David Laws and us, is freedom, accountability and evidence of what works — and this Bill takes a sledgehammer to all three. It reverses academy freedoms, restores council bureaucrats, ruins Ofsted clarity and is anti-data and anti-evidence, attacking synthetic phonics, maths mastery and a knowledge-rich curriculum. It is based not on what works but on what we know does not work.I declare my interest as a former director of the New Schools Network. As such, I have worked with many great free school and academy leaders. I am enormously proud of the huge improvements in English schools over the last 14 years. In primary schools, English children are the best readers in the west. The PISA rankings show that we are: 11th in the world for maths, up from 27th under Labour; 13th in science, up from 16th under Labour; and 13th in reading, up from 25th under Labour. In response to various debates and questions, the Education Secretary has made it clear that she does not really like these statistics, but the same story is told by the “progress in international reading literacy” study and the “trends in international mathematics and science” study. It is a shame that Ministers cannot bring themselves to celebrate this success story, or even to congratulate the leader of the best school in the country, Katharine Birbalsingh of the Michaela community school. Facts are very inconvenient when Ministers are so ideological about education. The magic formula behind this success is one championed by Tony Blair, David Laws and all of us on the Conservative Benches today. The formula is freedom, accountability and evidence of what works. Through this Bill and other measures, the Government are unfortunately taking a sledgehammer to each of these principles. New free schools have been cancelled, the trust capacity fund has gone, and funds for schools that are planning to academise have been taken away. And this Bill is about to reverse academy freedoms, restore the powers of council bureaucrats and replace innovation with ideological uniformity. The clarity of Ofsted accountability has been ruined. Standard attainment tests in primary schools are in danger, and with them school accountability and progress data will go. On the evidence base, this Government are anti-data, anti-facts and, indeed, anti-evidence, as we have heard during the debate. There have been a…
- Do you share my hope that Government Members will follow the example of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden and put this Bill under genuine scrutiny?
Does my hon. Friend share my hope that Government Members will follow the example of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) and put the Bill under genuine scrutiny?
- I share that admiration — her speech was incredibly powerful, and I hope the Labour Front Bench listened, even if they aren't listening to me and are looking at their phones. The Government have made a deliberate decision to dismantle everything that has worked.
I share my right hon. Friend’s admiration for the speech given by the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). It was incredibly powerful and I hope Members on the Labour Front Bench listened closely to what she said, even if they are not listening to me right now—they are looking at their phones. The Government have made a deliberate decision to dismantle everything that has worked.
How do you respond to a system in which a third of young people fail to get a good GCSE in English and maths, and we have the most unhappy young people in the OECD?How does the hon. Gentleman respond to the situation under the current system, whereby a third of young people fail to get a good GCSE in English and maths, and we have the most unhappy young people in the OECD?
- Look at the studies comparing English schools with others, here and abroad. PISA shows our most disadvantaged students do as well as the average pupil in Wales — yet the Government seem to be basing their policies on the Welsh system. Look at the evidence, even if Ministers won't.
I invite the hon. Lady to look at the studies that compare English schools with those in other countries, internationally and within the United Kingdom. The PISA statistics show that the most disadvantaged students in England have the same outcomes as average pupils in Wales, but the Government seem to be basing their policies on the Welsh system. I invite her to look at the evidence, even if Ministers will not.
- You called Labour Members "anti-data", then cited the Welsh system. Have you reviewed Professor John Jerrim's work on the 2015 England PISA results, which found an anomaly in the treatment of Welsh-language tests that, if corrected, would significantly boost Wales's PISA placing?
My interest was piqued by the hon. Gentleman’s description of Labour Members as being “anti-data”. He talks about the Welsh education system. Has he reviewed the arguments made by Professor John Jerrim, who conducted the 2015 review of the England PISA results and found that there is an anomaly with the treatment of Welsh language tests that, if corrected, would significantly boost Wales’s placing in the PISA rankings?
- Your creativity in defending the indefensible is admirable. On top of everything else, this Bill makes things worse — compelling schools to follow a national curriculum about to be weakened by the Francis review, removing pay-and-conditions freedom, and granting Ministers unspecified powers to direct academies. It is a deliberate act of ideological vandalism; standards will fall, children will suffer, and the Education Secretary's legacy will be a case study in what does not work.
I shared several hours twice weekly with the hon. Gentleman when we served on the Employment Rights Bill Committee. His creativity in defending the indefensible was admirable in that Committee, as it is today. On top of the things I have already listed, measures in the Bill before us will make things yet worse, including the compulsion to follow the national curriculum, which is about to be weakened by the review by Becky Francis, and the removal of freedom on pay and conditions. The Education Secretary has today failed to explain how she will meet the commitments she made to avoid cutting pay for some teachers. In addition, Ministers are granting themselves unspecified powers to direct academies in future; I think we know what that might mean. The Bill, and the other changes introduced by this Government, are a deliberate act of ideological vandalism. Standards will fall as a result, children will suffer, and the legacy of the Education Secretary will be the provision of a case study in what does not work in education.
This is an extremely welcome Bill. Around 112,000 children are home-educated, and in most cases that's in the child's best interests — but as a foster carer of 25 years I've seen families avoid scrutiny for too long by moving house and school, and the register means authorities will know where children are, with home-education requests refusable during section 47 action. Parents home-educating with no issues have nothing to fear. The Bill also tackles the exorbitant fees of large placement providers — the largest 20 made £310 million profit in 2021-22, and my own council's looked-after spend rose from £44 million to £110 million — so I welcome the financial oversight scheme and profit cap.This is an extremely welcome Bill that addresses some long-standing issues in social care and education. There are much-needed measures to ease the capacity pressures on fostering services by offering family group decision making and requiring all councils to publish a kinship offer. There are very welcome measures for hard-pressed families on school uniforms and free breakfast clubs. On behalf of care leavers, I am pleased to see the focus on Staying Close, which offers vital support in the transition from being in care to leaving care. It is very much a Maslow’s hierarchy of needs issue: unless young people have the basics in place, it is very difficult to focus on moving forward. In my limited time, I want to mention three measures that I am particularly pleased with. There are around 112,000 children currently being educated at home. Parents choose that route for a number of reasons, and I am comfortable that in most cases the decision to home-educate is taken with the child’s best interests in mind. However, there are those who choose to home-educate when difficult questions start to be asked by concerned professionals who are in regular contact with the child. As a foster carer of 25 years, I have seen the consequences of those families managing to avoid the spotlight for far too long by moving house, moving school and avoiding scrutiny. The Bill is therefore immensely positive for those particularly vulnerable children. It will mean that authorities will know where children are and they can be better monitored through the creation of the register. Children going through section 47 action can have an application to be educated at home refused by the local authority. It is worth saying, however, that parents who are home-educating children with no issues have nothing to be concerned about—I heard the Secretary of State say that just yesterday. The Bill addresses the exorbitant fees being charged by some of the large children’s placement providers. I was at the…
- I can't give way as I'm due in a Delegated Legislation Committee. I also welcome enabling new local authority schools — the previous requirement that new schools be academies or free schools was based on ideology, not evidence, and ending it lets the best-suited provider open them and gives a broader range of measures when schools fail. There are a broad range of positives here, and the future of our most vulnerable children has just become a little brighter.
I cannot because I have to go to a Delegated Legislation Committee in a minute. I apologise. I also welcome the fact that the Bill enables the creation of new local authority schools. Under the previous Government, new schools were required to be academies or free schools, and that policy was based on ideology rather than evidence. Ending that requirement will mean that when new schools are built, they can be opened by the provider best suited to meet the needs of the local community. Ending the restriction will also ensure that when schools fail, a broader range of measures can be taken to give schools the support they need to succeed. There are a broad range of positives in the Bill. They may not realise it yet, but the future of our most vulnerable children has just become a little brighter.
As a father of three little girls, I welcome much of the Bill, especially the accommodation provisions for looked-after children. Surrey was shocked by Sara Sharif's murder, but there are other Surrey stories: Jennifer Chalkley, 17 and autistic, died by suicide one month into college after a multi-agency failure including Surrey county council; Oskar Nash, 14 and autistic, died on a railway line after the same kind of failure. Sara Sharif had bruises, burn marks, and 15 reports over 10 years to her school and social services — how is that "going to extreme lengths to conceal the truth"?As a father of three little girls, I find much to welcome in the Bill. Part 1 speaks to improving children’s social care and I particularly support the provisions on accommodation for looked-after children. The whole country was saddened and shocked by the murder of Surrey child Sara Sharif. Sadly, there are other stories in Surrey that also need to be heard. Jennifer Chalkley, from Bookham in my constituency, started college in September 2021. She was 17 and had been diagnosed with autism and ADHD. One month later, she was dead from suicide. Last year, her coroner concluded that her death was avoidable. It had been a multi-agency failure, including a failure by the children, families and lifelong learning department at Surrey county council, according to the coroner’s report, “to ensure that Jennifer’s Education, Health and Care Plan contained sufficient and updated information about…her risk of suicide”. Oskar Nash, another Surrey child with autism, was 14 when he walked on to a railway line near Egham in January 2020. Last year, his coroner concluded that his death was avoidable. Again, it was a multi-agency failure, including a failure by the children, families and lifelong learning department at Surrey county council, again, according to the coroner’s report, “To ensure that Oskar’s Educational, Health and Care Plan contained sufficient…information” about his suicidal thoughts. Then there is Sara Sharif, who was murdered in 2023 by her father and stepmother. The executive director at the children, families and lifelong learning department at Surrey county council dismissed any accountability, saying in a statement that “the perpetrators went to extreme lengths to conceal the truth from everyone.” There were bruises and burn marks, and reports of a child being punched all over her body. There were 15 reports over 10 years to Sara’s school and to social services. How is that going to “extreme lengths” to conceal the truth from anyone?
Thank you for mentioning my constituent Sara Sharif. Don't you agree that the Bill's provisions forcing local authorities to share data could have saved Sara from Woking and could save vulnerable children going forward?I thank my hon. Friend and all others in the House who have mentioned my constituent, Sara Sharif, today. Does he agree that the provisions in the Bill that would not just encourage but force local authorities to share that data could have saved Sara from Woking and could save vulnerable children going forward?
- I agree data sharing is vital — but alone it won't prevent the systematic negligence of Surrey county council, which had the highest number of statutory breaches relating to children reported to the Ombudsman for over two years and covered up information for 14 months. Surrey objectively contributed to the deaths of Jennifer Chalkley, Oskar Nash and Sara Sharif by ignoring existing legislation.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend as Sara’s MP for raising the horror that has taken place. Of course, I agree that data sharing between public authorities is vital to ensure that such a case does not happen again. But it is not enough, and, alone, it will not prevent the catastrophic and systematic negligence of Surrey county council. This is the same department that had the highest number of statutory breaches relating to children reported to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman for over two years. The department covered information up from its own county council and scrutiny committee for more than 14 months, and only disclosed it when my five Liberal Democrat Surrey MP colleagues and I publicly called it out. Surrey county council objectively contributed to the deaths of Jennifer Chalkley, Oskar Nash and Sara Sharif by ignoring existing legislation.
My 16-year-old constituent "Claire" has attempted to take her own life 12 times, and her mother has had to take Surrey county council to tribunal 10 times to get the support she needs. While we welcome tighter legislation, isn't it only as good as the willingness and ability of schools and councils to implement it?I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, especially during such a powerful and meaningful speech. One of my constituents, whom I shall refer to as Claire in order to protect her identity, is only 16 years old and has attempted to take her own life 12 times. Her desperate mother has had to take Surrey county council to a tribunal 10 times to try to secure the appropriate educational, therapeutic and social care that she needs. Does my hon. Friend agree that, while we welcome the tightening of legislation presented in the Bill, it is only as good as the willingness and ability of schools and councils to implement it?
- I fully agree — Surrey failed to abide by existing legislation, so how can we believe new legislation alone will be enough? There are children in Surrey at risk right now. Jennifer Chalkley's mother texted me this morning saying her story needs sharing to save other young lives. So I ask the House: is this Bill alone enough to save our children's lives, or does the children's department at Surrey county council also need root-and-branch reform immediately?
I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Surrey county council failed to abide by existing legislation, so how on earth are we meant to believe that new legislation alone will be enough? I share his concerns about Claire. I know from my constituents that there are children in Surrey who are at risk right now. That is why I am speaking today. This morning, Jennifer Chalkley’s mother, Sharon, texted me to say: “Even though you didn’t get to meet Jen, her story is a powerful one and needs sharing to save other young lives. I raised Jen to be the change you want to see in the world and she’s still doing this.” I replied, “She will be”. I ask the House to consider this: is this Bill alone enough to save our children’s lives, or does the children, families and lifelong learning department at Surrey county council also need root and branch reform immediately?
- Opposition Members should be ashamed to defend a status quo that fails a third of young people, leaving them without a decent GCSE in English and maths, and gives us the unhappiest young people in the OECD. Home education has risen from 92,000 to 112,000 in a year because the system isn't inclusive enough. London's gains weren't just down to academisation — the London Challenge had many factors, and replicating academisation in the most deprived areas hasn't produced the same results; I've seen trust after trust take on a failing school and fail to improve it. Competition incentivises off-rolling, so children with autism and complex needs get pushed out. That's why I welcome these reforms.
I thank the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) for his moving contribution. Members on the Opposition Benches should be ashamed to defend the status quo. The current system has seen one third of young people being failed. They leave the system feeling like failures because they have not achieved the basic qualifications of a decent GCSE in English and maths to be able to progress with their lives. We have the unhappiest young people in the OECD, and when we speak to young people, they tell us that their experience in the education system is a significant contributor to that feeling of unhappiness, and the mental health crisis that they face. The legacy of the previous Government is that home education, which has only recently been properly counted year on year, has risen in the last 12 months from 92,000 to 112,000, but post covid, it has probably doubled or tripled. That reflects the fact that the system is not working for far too many parents, because it is not inclusive and does not meet their needs, and the changes to the curriculum have limited young people, who have different abilities, being able to prove their strengths and be valued in the classroom. That is not to mention the failures in SEND, and the urgent change that we know that we need to meet the significant support needs of some young people. I challenge the defence of the existing system made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh). The huge improvements in London are not just based on academisation. We can look at evidence such as the research that was done following the London Challenge strategy. Multiple factors contributed to the great gains that London made, but when we have tried to replicate them outside London, in genuinely the most deprived parts of this country, we have not seen the same gains. I have seen academy trust after academy trust take on a failing school, with the most vulnerable children in our country, and fail to make the i…
Extending regulation and inspection to more schools creates a safer environment for our children, and the improved analysis of facilities for children with SEND is much needed. But the system must be efficient: Dorset Studio school, where 52% of pupils have SEND, has no hall, no canteen and no specialist teaching areas, and funding approved for its new campus in February 2023 has stalled in Treasury and Department delays. I urge the Government to release that funding without delay — these children deserve better.Ensuring the safety and success of children in our schools is one of the most important responsibilities that we have as policymakers. By extending regulations and inspections to include more schools, we are creating a safer environment for our children and giving them the best chance to thrive. The Bill introduces improved analysis of school facilities, particularly for children with special educational needs and disabilities, which is a much-needed measure. The changes will ensure that every child has access to an environment where they can learn and grow, in safety and in comfort. However, while these measures are welcome, it is equally important that we ensure that the current system, as well as any future one, is both effective and efficient. It is vital that schools, teachers and most importantly children are not left waiting for the resources and support that they need. The case of Dorset Studio school, which serves not just my constituents in West Dorset but students across the county, illustrates the urgent need for the system to deliver results quickly. Dorset Studio school provides exceptional support for students, but especially for the 52% of its pupils with special educational needs—three times the national average. The quality of the education that the pupils receive is despite the fact that the school operates in facilities that are not fit for purpose. It has no hall, no canteen and no specialist teaching areas. The split campus layout and cramped classrooms make it impossible to provide the individualised support that children need, particularly those with physical disabilities. In February 2023, funding for the school’s new campus was approved. The project was set to merge its two sites into one modern campus. However, since then, progress has stalled, with delays in releasing the funds from the Treasury and the Department for Education. The Bill will extend the checks necessary for safeguarding our children to more schools, but we must be mindful…
This is a landmark Bill. As a former police officer and education welfare officer in a Forest of Dean secondary, I saw the impact of disrupted education, worsened by covid, hitting vulnerable students hardest. We currently have a system where parents can home-educate with no checks, which can lead to a safeguarding crisis as children go unaccounted for. I'm not saying home education or every absence is a concern, but having dealt with horrific cases I know one is one too many — and the Bill rightly introduces a requirement for children educated outside school to be registered with local authorities.The Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that promises to transform the lives of children across England. It is a testament to the Government’s unwavering commitment to the safeguarding and welfare of children. I welcome it as an opportunity to ensure that every child, regardless of their background, has access to the support, protection and education they deserve. Following my earlier policing career and before entering this place, I worked as an education welfare officer in a large secondary school in the Forest of Dean. I saw at first hand the impact of a disrupted education. The covid-19 pandemic only exacerbated those challenges, and more and more children are missing school for a number of reasons. Vulnerable students were hit hardest, further deepening existing inequalities felt within the education system. The disruption to their education was not just academic, though; it poses pastoral problems. We have a system where parents can choose to home-educate without any checks or scrutiny, and that can lead to a crisis of safeguarding as children are often unaccounted for during this time. Let me be clear: I am not saying that home education and every single school absence are safeguarding concerns, but having dealt with some horrific safeguarding cases in my previous careers, I am sure the House will agree that even one safeguarding case is one too many and that we should all be doing something to ensure the safety of our children. Currently, there is no legal requirement for parents to inform local authorities if their child is being home-schooled, and that lack of oversight leaves children at risk as their needs and safety may be overlooked. The Bill aims to address those oversights by introducing a requirement for children educated outside of school to be registered with local authorities.
- Can you give a single case of a home-educated child being harmed who was not already known to social services? Again and again it is a failure of social services when notified, not the absence of a burdensome register for parents who often home-educate out of desperation.
Can the hon. Member give a single case of a home-educated child being harmed who was not already known to social services? Again and again, it is a failure of social services when notified, not the absence of a burdensome register for parents, who often home-educate their children out of desperation.
- In my police and education careers, there were such cases. I won't name individuals in the House, but I'm happy to liaise with you outside the Chamber about cases I have dealt with.
During my previous careers in the police and in education, there were cases. I will not say individual names in the House, but I am more than happy to liaise with the right hon. Member and his colleagues outside the Chamber about cases I have dealt with.
- Didn't Sara Sharif's case show her father and stepmother used the home-schooling loophole to withdraw her from school once signs were being noticed — and that this legislation could have protected her and others?
Does the hon. Member agree that the case of Sara Sharif showed that her father and stepmother used this home-schooling loophole to withdraw her from school because signs were being noticed, and that this new legislation could have protected her and should protect others?
- I wholeheartedly agree — that is exactly what I dealt with for many years. The register will ensure better tracking so no child is forgotten or left behind. I also welcome the legal definition of kinship care and the duty on local authorities to publish an up-to-date local offer — a 2019 report found 16% of councils lacked a kinship care policy or had outdated ones — which will level the playing field and ensure consistent support for kinship carers and children across the country.
I wholeheartedly agree, and that is exactly what I have dealt with over many years before joining this place. The Bill aims to address the oversights by introducing that requirement for children educated outside of school to be registered with the local authorities. That simple step will ensure better tracking and safeguarding of children, helping us guarantee that all children, especially those educated outside of traditional systems, are accounted for and supported. From now on, no child will be forgotten, invisible or left behind. It is also right that we acknowledge the invaluable role of kinship carers. Many children in kinship care face unique challenges, including with their mental health and emotional support needs. However, not all children in kinship care arrangements receive the same support as children in formal care. In fact, a 2019 report found that 16% of local authorities either lacked a kinship care policy or had outdated ones. That is not good enough for kinship carers or children in kinship care. The Bill will ensure that kinship care is legally defined, and that local authorities publish a comprehensive and up-to-date local offer and provide carers with essential information about financial assistance, and about health, education and wellbeing services. That will go some way towards levelling the playing field, and will ensure consistency in the support available to kinship carers and children across the country. The Bill is more than just a set of policies. It is a commitment to the protection, education and wellbeing of our children. By prioritising the mental, emotional and educational needs of children, we are laying the foundations for a future in which every child can succeed, regardless of their circumstances. I urge all Members to support the Bill, and to work together to ensure that every child has the opportunity they deserve to thrive.
- Having been a secondary teacher, I congratulate the Government on putting children back at the heart of what we do, though the Bill could go further. Local authorities need the powers of an admission authority if they are to have responsibility for admissions. We support requiring all new teachers to have, or be working towards, qualified teacher status. I'm more sceptical on the pay framework: if academies can opt out, teachers a few streets apart could be on vastly different pay, creating a postcode lottery and risking the teachers' pension scheme's viability. And there is no provision for a dedicated mental health professional in every school — half of mental illness manifests before age 14, so support in schools is key.
Having been a secondary school teacher before I became an MP, I congratulate the Government on bringing forward legislation that once again puts children at the heart of what we in this place want to achieve. The Every Child Matters initiative was introduced nearly two decades ago. My party and I welcome many things in this Bill, but we believe that it could go even further. It was clear from discussions with the National Association of Head Teachers in Bath and North East Somerset that local authorities need further responsibility for admissions. I am pleased that local authorities will have greater powers to direct admission to maintained schools and academies when children need places. However, if the local authority has responsibility for admissions, it should have the powers of an admission authority. I welcome the introduction of a register for children not in school. We Liberal Democrats support the policy that all new teachers in state-funded primary and secondary schools should have, or be working towards, qualified teacher status. That is a crucial step in upholding the quality of education, and we Liberal Democrats have been calling for it for a long time. I am a little more sceptical on the core pay and conditions framework. Teachers deserve a system that values their dedication equally, no matter where they work. The Bill promises something that we can all support: a single framework for teachers’ pay and conditions—one set of rules applied consistently across Government-maintained schools and academies. That sounds fair, and most academies already follow the framework. However, the Department for Education has stated: “Before requiring academies to comply with the framework we will ask the School Teachers’ Review Body to consider additional flexibilities within the statutory framework to make it most effective for all schools.” If academies decide to opt out, teachers working just a few streets apart could find themselves on vastly different pay scales…
Where you're born should not determine your future, yet after 14 years early intervention and early-years priorities were eroded — I saw the damage on the frontline. Child poverty has risen over 8% since 2014, and one in five children in my constituency live in poverty. This is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and the roll-out of free breakfast clubs will improve literacy, numeracy and cognitive functioning. I've friends who are teachers buying meal deals to feed children who turn up with empty lunchboxes — I'll be relentless in closing the attainment gap for the most deprived children.I am proud to speak on this Bill. Children growing up in our country deserve the best possible start in life. Where a person is born should not determine their future, but after 14 years of Conservative government, not all children have the same opportunity to succeed. During those 14 years, the very notions of early intervention, diverse educational pathways and early years priorities were eroded. I know that, because I was working on the frontline. I saw what happened, and the damage that was done. The number of children living in poverty in the UK has risen by over 8% since 2014. In my constituency of Sherwood Forest, one in five children live in poverty; across the east midlands, the number is almost one in four. That is simply outrageous. Children deserve better. That is why I am pleased to support the Bill; it puts children and their wellbeing and safety back at the heart of the Government’s decision making, where they belong. I am proud that the Bill seeks to improve safeguarding and protection for children throughout the education system. Make no mistake: this is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and to suggest otherwise shows a total lack of understanding and no real knowledge of how children’s protection services work today. Another element of the Bill that I am really proud to see is the roll-out of free breakfast clubs in primary schools. A child’s experience at school massively impacts their future, and when children go hungry at school, they are more likely to fall behind their peers. I am a school governor and a mother, and I know from all my friends who are teachers that children turn up to school who have not been fed, or with empty lunchboxes. I have friends who regularly pick up meal deals from the local Tesco to feed children at their school. That is what 14 years of Conservative government have done to the poorest and most vulnerable children in our country. There are so many benefits to providing free bre…
I've raised the rape-gangs scandal more than 40 times since being elected, and we are repeating the mistakes of the past — it's deeply concerning that Government Members plan to vote against the amendment's call for a national inquiry. Last night the safeguarding Minister said local inquiries are more effective, yet minutes later local leaders in Bradford again rejected my long-standing call for a full local inquiry, calling it too expensive — the same authority that spent over £40 million on an empty music venue. Every time I raise this nationally it's referred to local government, and every time I raise it locally it's blocked as a national problem. There is a complete vacuum of accountability.Having consistently advocated for victims of the rape gangs scandal in my part of West Yorkshire—I have raised the subject more than 40 times in this place since being elected—I want to focus on that issue in the short time I have been allocated to speak today. It is over two decades since the Labour MP Ann Cryer, my predecessor, first brought the issue to the House. Unfortunately, we seem to be repeating the mistakes of the past today. It is deeply concerning to me that right hon. and hon. Members on the Government Benches plan to vote against the call in the amendment for a national rape gangs inquiry. Last night, the safeguarding Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)—told the public that a national inquiry is not needed because local inquiries are more effective at bringing about change. However, just minutes after she made those remarks, local leaders in Bradford once again rejected my long-standing calls for a full local inquiry into rape gangs across Keighley and the wider Bradford district, arguing that it would be too expensive. That same local authority has spent more than £40 million of public money on an empty music venue in the heart of Bradford. This is a complete and utter dereliction of duty by local leaders. More importantly, it demonstrates what I have been trying to say on this issue for years: every time I have brought up this issue at national level, it is referred back down to local government, but every time I have taken the prospect of an inquiry down to the local level, the suggestion is blocked by local leaders, and I am told that this is a national problem. There has been a complete vacuum of accountability in the system over the past two decades.
- How many of the people involved have been held accountable, lost their job or had action taken against them?
How many of the people involved have been held accountable, lost their job or had action taken against them?
- Nobody — which is exactly why I've advocated for a local inquiry across Bradford for far too long. A 50-page report on five sexually exploited children in 2020 acknowledged mistakes, but no one was held to account. The amendment tackles the systematic problems and ends this accountability vacuum; convictions should follow a national inquiry focused on rape gangs. When local leaders refuse their duty, the Government should step in — this is about the difference between right and wrong, so vote for a national rape-gangs inquiry.
Nobody has, and that is exactly why I have been advocating for a local inquiry across the Bradford district—for far too long. A report of 50 pages that looked at five children who had been sexually exploited in the Bradford district was released in 2020. It acknowledged that there had been mistakes, but nobody was held to account. The amendment rightly tabled by the Leader of the Opposition is important because it tackles systematic problems and will end this vacuum of accountability once and for all. Convictions should follow a national inquiry that focuses on rape gangs and child sexual exploitation. When local leaders refuse their duty and ignore the concerns of local victims, it is only right that the Government step in. Ultimately, this is not about party politics, but about the difference between right and wrong. For too long, at all levels of the British state—in national and local government—all those with safeguarding responsibilities have failed to do the right thing. There are children and families out there—I know them; I have met them in my constituency—who have suffered abuse that is unspeakable. They want the world to know the depths to which this scandal reaches. They fear, as I do, that the scale of gang rape and child sexual exploitation across the Bradford district will dwarf that in Rotherham. They want an end to this accountability vacuum. On behalf of my constituents across Keighley and indeed the wider Bradford district, I urge everyone in the House to vote with their conscience, stand up for what is right, do the right thing, and vote for a national rape gangs inquiry.
I welcome the Bill for the difference it will make to children living in poverty in Stockton North. The multi-agency teams and unique identifier recommended by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington will ensure no children fall through the cracks. Breakfast clubs in my area won't just save money — they'll mean a child goes to school fed. As someone who grew up eligible for free school meals but never accessed them, I urge the Government to look at auto-enrolment. Child poverty in my area has risen 20% in a decade, with one in three children now in poverty — I've seen security tags on infant formula and signs begging for soap and toothpaste. These children cannot wait for a future Conservative Government.I welcome the Bill, and I will talk about the difference that it will make to children living in poverty in my constituency of Stockton North. First, however, I remind the House of the words of Dame Rachel de Souza, the Children’s Commissioner for England, who said that too many of our services are failing. We heard powerful testimony from the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan), who described the tragic consequences of those failings. We also heard the expert words of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), whose recommendations on multi-agency teams and the unique identifier will make a difference in ensuring that no children fall through the cracks and that this legislation keeps children safe. The Bill will also drive forward equality of opportunity. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith) the prediction that breakfast club measures will save families £450, but for many families in Stockton North, rather than saving £450, the measures will simply ensure that a child goes to school with a breakfast. We have heard from many Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) and for Stroud (Dr Opher), and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), about the benefits of automatic enrolment for free school meals. As someone who grew up eligible for free school meals but never accessed them, I can say that that would definitely make a difference to children in my constituency, and I encourage the Government to look at that. I commend Stockton-on-Tees borough council for conducting a trial in that area. The scale of the challenge of child poverty in my constituency is enormous. Figures from the North East Child Poverty Commission indicate that child poverty has increased by 20% over the last decade, and that one in three children in my area now live in poverty. It is heartbreaking to see signs in local community centres asking for donations of b…
- Very little of the Bill applies to Northern Ireland other than Clause 56, so perhaps the Minister can explain what would be subject to regulation here. Representing a part of the UK with consistently high educational standards, I want the same for the rest of the country, and I'm concerned that a structure used by successive Governments is being dismantled for ideological reasons. There has been limited consultation on home schooling and real fears among those who educate at home. There has always been legislation to safeguard children — the failures were in the police, councils and social services not acting on it. And we cannot have a children's wellbeing Bill while turning a blind eye to Pakistani rape gangs.
Very little of the Bill applies to Northern Ireland other than clause 56, so perhaps when she sums up the debate, the Minister will explain what legislation will be subject to regulation in this House if she so decides. Having said that, I wish to comment on the Bill because, having the privilege of representing a part of the United Kingdom that consistently registers high educational standards, I want the same for the rest of the country to which I belong. I understand, of course, that there will always be people who fall through the bars and do not do as well in the education system, but it is important that a structure is in place that ensures the best for everyone. One concern about the Bill is that a structure that has been in place for two decades, and used under successive Governments of different hues, will now be dismantled because of some ideological reasons that the Government have. I imagine I will not have time in this short speech to go into those issues, but I hope that they will be teased out and properly considered during scrutiny of the Bill. Secondly, there has been limited consultation on home schooling, and there are real fears from people who educate their children at home about the impact the Bill might have. Much has been made of the fact that, if the Bill does not pass, children will not be safeguarded, but the fact of the matter is that there has always been legislation to safeguard children. As the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) pointed out, even with legislation in place there were still failures by the police, local authorities, social services and local councils to carry out the safeguarding that was available to them in law. My final point is that we cannot have a Bill on children’s wellbeing, and at the same time ignore the controversy out there among the public as a result of our renewed exposure to the terrible events where Pakistani rape gangs have tortured, intimidated and abused young girls. Yet we have turned…
Don't you agree that a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation focused on grooming gangs is essential for justice and societal healing, and that failing to hold one will leave a stain on the Government and obstruct the full truth?Does the right hon. Member agree that a national inquiry into child sexual exploitation focused on grooming gangs is not only essential for justice for the innocent victims affected but would play a crucial role in societal healing in the UK, and that failing to initiate such an inquiry will leave a stain on the Government, hinder transparency and obstruct the full truth?
- You're absolutely right. We will be accused of having a political agenda and marching to Musk's drum, but the demand at the end of the amendment is one every decent person should support, because it would restore the trust people have lost in how this issue has been handled.
The hon. Member is absolutely right. Of course, we will be, and have been, accused of having our own political agenda, wanting to stir up racism, marching to Musk’s drum and everything else, but the demand at the end of the amendment is one that every decent person should wish to support, because it would restore the trust that people have lost in seeing how this issue has been handled.
Having spent seven years managing a team of barristers on a public inquiry, I know their benefits and limitations. Do you really think wrecking this Bill would bring a single perpetrator to justice or protect a single child from these despicable crimes?I spent seven years managing a team of barristers on a public inquiry, and I have some insight into the benefits and limitations of public inquiries. Does the right hon. Member really think that wrecking the Bill would lead to a single perpetrator being brought to justice or protect a single child from these despicable crimes?
- First, supporting the amendment does not wreck the Bill. Second, there is already plenty of legislation under which to act — it's simply a case of doing it. A public inquiry would expose those who think they can hide, deny and cover up, as happened in Telford where the council leader insisted there was no need for an inquiry. An inquiry would not stop action in the meantime; the longer people think these things can be covered up, the less they will do the job they are meant to, and vulnerable people will keep being exploited without protection.
First, supporting the amendment does not wreck the Bill. [Interruption.] Secondly, there is a misconception that if we do not support the Bill, no action will be taken. There is plenty of legislation under which to take the action at present; it is simply a case of doing it and giving people the assurance that it is being done. Also, the public inquiry would ensure that those who think they can hide, deny and cover up would finally be exposed, because the House was willing to take them on and expose what has happened. That is why it is so important. We cannot allow the situation to prevail. We know that this issue is far more widespread than was ever thought. There have been denials. Indeed, I remember the previous Member for Telford raising this issue time and again in the last Parliament and being shouted down. At that stage, although she was providing the evidence—this is what we need to expose—the leader of the Telford council was saying, “There is no need to tell the Home Office and no need for an inquiry.” Now, of course, we know what happened in Telford. Restoring trust in politicians and the system is what a public inquiry would do. It would not have to lead to no action being taken in the meantime. I listened to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion)—I have great admiration for her, because she was prepared to stand up even when it meant abuse from some of her own party members—who argued that to have an inquiry would delay justice being done. As I have said, I do not believe that that is the case. An inquiry would not mean that we would stop taking action—of course, we could still take action—but it would lead to the full facts being known, those involved being exposed and action taken against them to ensure that it does not happen again. I tell the House that the longer people think that these things can be covered up and hidden and attention diverted, the less they will be prepared to do the job that they are meant to do, and we will have vulnera…
The merits of this Bill are clear: branded-uniform and breakfast-club measures put money back in Southampton families' pockets, and the register and unique identifier help agencies safeguard children. Any Member who has worked in education won't recognise the Tories' rosy picture — they left inadequate funding, crumbling buildings, endless strikes and a recruitment disaster. I want to focus on children who've experienced care: the excellent MacAlister review was commissioned by the last Government then shelved, warning the number of children in care would exceed 100,000. Family group conferencing, legal recognition of kinship care and extended Staying Close — which I introduced in Southampton three years ago to great success — will give every child a safe start.The very real and transformational merits of the Bill are clear. Measures on branded uniforms and free breakfast clubs will help families in Southampton Itchen and put money back in their pockets. Registering children who are not in school and having a unique number for every child will help multiple agencies to safeguard our children and work better together, more importantly. Having already dealt with the Tory legacy of endless teacher strikes, Labour’s Bill will start valuing qualified teachers once again who inspire our next generation, and will be paying them consistently. The Bill will also ensure that all children, regardless of school model or structure, can be inspired by a refreshed curriculum that sets them up for life. Any Member who has worked in education or social care will not recognise the fanciful picture of the Tories’ record. If it was so rosy, they may want to reflect on why they are now on the Opposition Benches. Let us have a bit of honesty: what they left was inadequate funding and crumbling buildings. They were against fully qualified teachers; there were endless strikes over pay; and recruitment and retention were a complete disaster. Those are the inconvenient facts that some of them want to avoid, all because of an obsession with buzzwords and structures, not with children’s outcomes. They talk about educational vandalism, but they are guilty of it. I want to focus my remaining comments on measures that will make a difference to a group whose voices are often not heard enough in this debate: children and young people who have experienced being in care. We have had the excellent independent review of children’s social care, carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), which, we should remember, was commissioned by the last Conservative Government and then, inexplicably and unforgivably, put on the shelf and ignored. In that report, my hon. Friend warned that without a significant change of cours…
I welcome the Bill as an important step in strengthening multi-agency safeguarding. A headteacher told me children disclose to teachers, and as a former safeguarding governor I know the load teachers carry. Sara Sharif's death is a sobering reminder of the system's weaknesses. I welcome the register of children not in school, but it should go further: parents will lose the automatic right to home-educate if their child is currently subject to a child protection plan, but will that protect children like Sara, who was previously known to social services but not at the time of her death? I'd also press for a dedicated mental health professional in every school — almost 7,000 Surrey children are on mental health waiting lists — and I'm disappointed the Bill falls short on SEND.Let me starting by saying how much I welcome the Bill, as an important step in strengthening the role of education and multi-agency safeguarding arrangements, so that we can better identify and protect vulnerable children. A headteacher in my constituency reached out to me and said: “Children do disclose to teachers, particularly in primary school. We spend so many hours with children—we are often the voice for the child. Parents can often tell authorities things that are not true.” The tragic death of Sara Sharif in my county of Surrey serves as a sobering reminder of the current weaknesses in the system and the consequences of not getting such an important piece of legislation right for children at risk of neglect and abuse. As a school governor for eight years, with responsibility for safeguarding, I understand a little of the load that teachers carry that keeps them awake at night. One headteacher told me: “Unless you have spent sleepless nights worrying about a child, knocked on a door in the hope that a child is still alive, you don’t understand.” As a governor during covid, when all our vulnerable children were stuck at home initially, I understand that. The Bill is a welcome first step, but there is much more the Government can do to support children and young people. I welcome the creation of a register of children not in school, but I believe the Bill should go further. As it stands, parents will no longer have an automatic right to home-educate if their child is subject to a child protection investigation or under a child protection plan. However, I am not clear whether these provisions would have protected children such as Sara, who was previously known to social services but was not at the time of her death. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify whether, in order to protect such children, the Bill will ensure that parents will not have an automatic right to home-educate if their child has also had a history of child protection investigation…
I'll vote for this Bill on behalf of Doncaster's children. As a former prison officer I worked with many care leavers and heard harrowing experiences — around 50% of young offenders in custody and 29% of the whole prison population are care-experienced, and care leavers aged 18 to 20 are nine times more likely to face homelessness. I welcome the higher bar for councils to support care leavers and the requirement to publish a full local offer, and I hope the Government will adopt Barnardo's recommendation to extend corporate parenting to the Home Office, police and healthcare. I'm also pleased the Bill ends the disgusting profiteering in children's social care.All children deserve the very best start in life, and I will vote in favour of this Bill today on behalf of all the children in Doncaster Central who deserve just that. Along with many other measures, I am pleased that the Bill acknowledges the immense challenges faced by care leavers and care-experienced children, and that it will set a higher bar for councils to support young people who have left care. In Doncaster there were 542 looked-after children in 2023. The Bill’s success will be measured by their outcomes, which have long been ignored. As a former prison officer, I have worked with many care leavers in the prisons system and heard their experiences, some of which were harrowing. The statistics speak for themselves: it is estimated that around 50% of young offenders in custody and around 29% of the entire prison population are care-experienced. That fact is most sobering when highlighting the significant failures in the current system, and it serves as a reminder to us all that change must come. It signifies a consistent and enduring failure to support young people in the care system, and tells our young people that if they need to be cared for by the state, they are less likely to lead a positive and stable adult life. It is the taxpayer, frankly, who is picking up the bill. According to research from Become, the number of young care leavers aged between 18 and 20 approaching local authorities as homeless has increased by 54% over the past five years, and they are nine times more likely to face homelessness than other young people. I wholeheartedly welcome the measures in the Bill that strengthen arrangements to support and assist care leavers in their transition to adulthood, and I hope that legislating for local authorities to publish a full local care offer for care leavers will offer much-needed clarity and direction, which can often be uncertain. I hope the Government will consider the recommendations from Barnardo’s, which suggest that the Bill shoul…
English education has been a success story because we trusted schools and academies to run themselves, pay teachers more and improve their curriculum. Ending central and local government micromanagement put power in the hands of school leaders and teachers — and English schools have soared up the global rankings under the Conservatives.As has been highlighted on the Opposition Benches, English education has been a success story. We have trusted schools to get on with the job, and academies and new free schools enjoy the freedom to run themselves, pay their teachers more and improve their curriculum. Ending central Government and local government micromanagement has put power into the hands of people who know best: school leaders and teachers. And it has worked: English schools have soared up the global rankings under the Conservatives.
You talk about putting power into teachers' hands — are you aware of the number of teachers so radicalised by the Conservatives' reforms that they now surround me on the Labour Benches?The hon. Gentleman talks about putting power into teachers’ hands. Is he aware of the number of teachers who have been so radicalised by the Conservatives’ reforms that they now surround me on the Labour Benches?
- The figures speak for themselves — English education is now seventh for maths and ninth for reading and science, up from 21st, 19th and 11th in 2009, while Scotland and Wales without those freedoms have stagnated. The Government's proposals strip academies of the power to pay teachers more — schools in my constituency choose to pay above national scales — cutting pay and weakening schools. In any other industry pay reflects performance and rises to attract talent. Instead the Government want to empower Whitehall, not schools, and risk wrecking a decade of progress for young people across Bromley and Biggin Hill.
Well, the figures speak for themselves. As was highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy), who has morphed into a Whip at the moment, English schools have soared up the rankings. If we look at the recent PISA league tables, we see that English education is now ranked seventh-best for maths and ninth for reading and science. That is up from 21st, 19th and 11th respectively in 2009. Meanwhile, education in Scotland and Wales under the SNP and Labour, where schools were not granted those freedoms, has stagnated and slumped in various global rankings, so much so that some of them have withdrawn altogether from some of those rankings. I want to focus on one problematic element of the Bill, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse). The Government’s proposals would strip academies of the power to pay teachers more, award performance, and attract and retain talented people. I understand that at least two schools in my constituency pay teachers more than the national pay scales: Oaklands primary in Biggin Hill and Pickhurst primary in Hayes. Nearby, the Harris primary academy in Shortlands and many more schools in Bromley also choose to pay teachers more. The Bill will strip academies of that power, cutting teachers’ pay and weakening schools. In any other industry, pay reflects performance. When vacancies cannot be filled, pay rises to attract talent. That is why schools should be able to vary from national pay scales. School leaders should be able to pay good teachers more and respond to the local jobs market. Instead, the Government want to wind the clock back and empower Whitehall, not schools. The Government are so eager to be doom-mongers to justify their ideological policies that they risk wrecking a decade of progress. Who will benefit? It is not the teachers or the children, so why are they doing it? I am not even sure that those on the Government Front Bench know, but what we do know is that the Bill will destabilis…
For children to be safe they need to be visible, and it's unacceptable that children can fall off the radar of those meant to protect them. The register of children not in school is an important common-sense measure: it's right that parents lose the automatic right to home-educate a child subject to a child protection investigation, that local authorities can identify children not in school, and that we introduce a unique identity number to ease information sharing. Much of the rise in home-schooling stems from SEND needs not being met, so this must run parallel to SEND reform — and nothing damages child wellbeing more than child poverty, which the uniform and breakfast-club measures help tackle.In a week where much has been said about protecting children, it is great to see the Government acting on the safety and wellbeing of children. For children to be safe, they need to be visible. A situation where children can fall off the radar of the authorities tasked with protecting them is clearly unacceptable, but we know it happens. We know that in a minority of cases, children can be taken out of school and out of the protections that schools provide, and come to harm. That is why introducing a register of children not in school is such an important and common-sense measure: it is right that parents will no longer have an automatic right to home-educate if their child is subject to a child protection investigation; it is right that local authorities can identify children not in school, in order to ensure that they are safe; and it is right to introduce a unique identity number for children that facilitates information sharing by the services charged with protecting them. As the Children’s Commissioner said, writing these landmark measures into law will be “of huge significance for any child currently at risk of harm in this country”. I am proud that the Government are so swiftly taking forward such measures. My final point on home education is that it is important to recognise that the steep increase in home-schooling is in part the result of parents of children with special educational needs feeling that those needs are not being met in mainstream education. It is therefore vital that the Bill runs parallel to the important work that the Government have already started at the Budget to reform and invest in a SEND system that has been severely neglected for too many years. Many other Members have talked of the huge importance of every child having a legal right of access to a breakfast club, and of the action we are taking to ensure that school uniforms are affordable. Nothing damages child wellbeing more than child poverty. Of course there is much more to do,…
I welcome two aspects in particular. The profit cap will let the Secretary of State cap the profits of non-local-authority providers of children's homes, foster agencies and supported accommodation — costs in my area are eye-wateringly high, described by my council's former Conservative leader as "rinsing" local finances. I welcome the measures to rebalance the placements market, demand full financial transparency and create regional care co-operatives.It is a pleasure to stand here today and talk about a Bill that delivers on the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. There are two aspects that I particularly welcome. The first is the potential profit cap, which will enable the Secretary of State to cap the profits of non-local authority Ofsted-registered providers of children’s homes, foster agencies and supported accommodation. There are areas throughout the country, including mine, where the cost of placing children in private sector residential social care is eye-wateringly high. I regularly meet officers from my local authority, Nottinghamshire county council, and the costs that they are incurring to meet the needs of children’s welfare have been described by the council’s former Conservative leader, Ben Bradley, as “rinsing” local authority finances. I think it important for us to ensure that private companies are not making excessive profits at the expense of other public sector services, and I therefore welcome the numerous measures in the Bill that aim to rebalance the children’s social care placements market and drive down those excessive profits made by some unscrupulous private providers, together with the demand for full financial transparency from those organisations and the potential for the creation of regional care co-operatives.
I previously oversaw children's social care in local government. Don't you agree these co-operatives will make a huge difference both to local government finances and to our ability to keep children safe and happy?I previously oversaw children’s social care in local government. Does my hon. Friend agree that the introduction of those co-operatives will make a huge difference not only to local government finances, but to our ability to ensure that children grow up safe and happy?
- Indeed — they'll rebalance spending and provide a measurably better standard of care at the same time. I'm especially motivated by the harrowing stories from constituents: teachers in Mansfield, visibly distressed, have used their own money to buy food for children turning up with empty stomachs — not unloved children, but ones from loving families working all hours. Free breakfast clubs in every primary school will have a significant, positive impact, which is why I'll vote for the Bill proudly.
Indeed; I see the positive benefit of both those developments. We will be able to rebalance spending across local authority budgets and provide a significantly better and measurable standard of care at the same time. The second aspect of the Bill that I particularly welcome is the introduction of free breakfast clubs in every primary school, which will have a significant and positive impact on families in Mansfield, in particular by helping with the cost of living and supporting parents who are having to juggle work commitments. However, I am especially motivated to support the Bill because of some of the harrowing stories that I have heard from constituents. Numerous teachers in Mansfield, some of them visibly distressed and upset, have told me that they have used their own money to buy food for children who have turned up to school with empty stomachs—young children who are so hungry that they cannot concentrate on their studies. It is not that those children are unloved or wilfully neglected; many come from loving families with both parents working all hours to provide for them, which leaves precious little time for the preparation of a meal before school. This Bill clearly drives home Labour’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity, and I will be voting for it proudly on behalf of all the children and families in my area who will benefit from it.
- This landmark Bill takes tangible action to keep children safe, raise standards and make families better off. It starts with a full stomach at the start of the day, which breakfast clubs deliver — helping attention, cognitive performance and giving parents flexibility to earn. Setting a specific limit on branded uniform items is an important step, and I hope we go further in due course.
This Bill is a landmark piece of legislation that not only demonstrates ambition but takes tangible action to keep children safe, improve educational standards and make families better off. Like many of us here, I got into politics to improve the life chances of children in my community and to make it a reality that, regardless of someone’s background or circumstances, the only ceiling on their potential is their talent and your determination, so I am delighted to see the Government bring forward this Bill, which begins the work of breaking down barriers to opportunity for our children. As anyone who has been involved in our schools or who has read any of the academic evidence on the subject will know, that starts with a full stomach at the beginning of the day, which breakfast clubs deliver. They help with attention span and cognitive performance, and they give parents greater flexibility to earn during their working hours. Strengthening the law to set out a specific number of branded school uniform items is an important step in the right direction, and I hope we will go further in due course.
- We talk about uniforms costing up to £500 — but for parents with several children at the same school, isn't the figure far bigger than that?
My hon. Friend mentions free breakfast clubs and the removal of some branded school uniform items. We talk about uniforms costing up to £500, but does he agree that the figure is bigger than that for parents who have multiple children at the same school?
- I absolutely agree — primary children need five days' worth of polo shirts plus PE kit. On the single unique identifier: Lord Laming recommended exactly this after Victoria Climbié's death in 2000, and report after report shows weak multi-agency working, so it must be consistently captured and information-sharing made part of the culture across local, health, police and national boundaries. I'm not ideological about academies — I've seen outstanding multi-academy trusts and ones that don't work — but the previous Government left a fragmented system, and requiring the national curriculum, qualified teachers and giving the adjudicator the final say on admissions is entirely sensible: it's about standards, not structures.
I absolutely agree. Primary school children, who typically wear polo shirts, need five days’ worth, plus PE kit. This measure will make an enormous difference. Although it has been great to see organisations such as the Winsford Uniform Exchange in my constituency grow and provide people with lower-cost and greener alternatives, bringing costs down for families is absolutely the right priority. The measures on breakfast clubs and school uniforms may be the two most visible in the Bill, and I hope that they will be part of the Government’s lasting legacy of supporting all children to achieve and thrive. The Bill covers a vast array of measures across the spectrum of children’s social care and schools policy, as we have discussed this afternoon. I will focus my comments predominantly on the schools side, although I want to take a moment to say something about the single unique identifier for children. In Lord Laming’s report on the death of Victoria Climbié in 2000, he recommended that the Government explore the safeguarding benefits of a national children’s database—effectively a single unique identifier—to address poor communication and data sharing between agencies. In report after case after report after case, the issue of weak multidisciplinary working continues to arise. The measure proposed in this Bill, alongside the clarification of the legal basis for information sharing and the creation of multi-agency child protection teams, will undoubtedly help, but they are the start of the story, not the end. The success of this measure will be in ensuring that the single unique identifier is consistently captured in reforming working practices so that information sharing is part of the culture, and in making it clear that local authority boundaries, health authority boundaries, police authority boundaries and, in my part of the world, national boundaries are not a barrier to good safeguarding practice, which has become more important as children travel further to appr…
As a former teacher and council leader, I know this Bill is welcome and will help those who work to protect and support children, which is why I'll vote for it and cannot support the wrecking amendment. In St Helens, making every child's best start our number one priority took children's services from inadequate to good and outstanding, with partnership working key — so I welcome the data-sharing and multi-agency measures. Uniform limits and breakfast clubs could save families £450 a year and mean children start each day fed and ready to learn. This is the biggest upgrade in child protection in a generation, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham for urging us to vote for it and implement the Jay recommendations.I am both a former teacher and a former council leader, and I speak on behalf of many of my former colleagues when I say that this Bill is welcome and will make a difference to children across St Helens North. It will also make a positive difference to the ability of those who work in education and other services to protect and support children and young people. That is why I will vote for the Bill and cannot support the Opposition’s wrecking amendment. Breaking down barriers to opportunity is a key Government mission, and one that, in my experience, has been vital to all those who choose to work with children and young people. When I was council leader in St Helens, we made giving every child the best possible start in life the council’s No. 1 priority, and I learned that partnership working is key. Together, we were able to take children’s services from inadequate when I became leader to good and outstanding. I warmly welcome the Bill’s measures to encourage data sharing and multi-agency work in all councils across the country. Members on both sides of the House should welcome the Bill’s measures to improve child protection and safeguarding, to improve support for children in care and care leavers, and to introduce better regulation of the children’s home sector. On wider issues under the Bill’s scope, I warmly welcome the concrete measures to put money back in families’ pockets at a time when we know things are difficult for many. Practical measures such as limiting the number of branded items of school uniform and introducing free breakfast clubs in primary schools could save families in St Helens North £450 a year. Perhaps more importantly, these measures will make sure that children can start each day with a full stomach, healthier, happier and ready to learn. I also want to see higher standards and more opportunities for every child in every school. I say this not just from my professional background and interest but, more importantly, as a parent. I am pleas…
I welcome this wide-ranging Bill. Given child poverty as high as 32% in my constituency, I welcome limiting uniform costs — parents are too often forced to choose schools by uniform cost, a form of selection — and the introduction of breakfast clubs. As a former lead member for children, I'm pleased powers over place planning and new schools are returning to local authorities, because every school's decisions affect its neighbours, and the cynical practice of off-rolling shows why the local authority role matters. In my experience the single biggest factor in turning a school around is not its governance structure but inspirational leadership — future leaders must be supported before they burn out.I welcome this wide-ranging Bill that focuses on the important issues of keeping children safe, providing more support for children in care, addressing child poverty, raising educational standards and returning local authorities to the centre of school place planning. Given the cost of living, and with child poverty as high as 32% in my constituency, I welcome the clauses on limiting school uniform costs. Parents are too often forced to prioritise their school choices based on the cost of the school uniform, which is a form of selection. If the Hounslow school my sons attended could limit branded kit to an iron-on blazer badge, a tie and a PE shirt, so that the rest could be bought at supermarkets, why cannot all schools do this? I also welcome the introduction of breakfast clubs in all schools. As a former local councillor and lead member for children, I am pleased that the Government are giving powers back to local authorities on place planning and proposals for new schools—a right removed by the Conservative Government after 2010. The opening, closing, growth, contraction and entry criteria of any school have a direct effect on neighbouring schools and local transport services. Furthermore, the cynical practice of off-rolling by schools that are trying to up their exam scores is another example of why the local authority role is so important. I welcome the relevant clauses in this Bill. Finally, every school in Hounslow is rated good or outstanding. I am sorry to disagree slightly with my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh), who is no longer in the Chamber, but in my experience the single biggest factor in successfully turning around a failing school is not its governance structure but the inspirational leadership of a great headteacher. To address the recruitment and retention challenge in school leadership, future great school leaders need to be identified and supported before they burn out and leave the profession mid-career,…
- As a teacher for 24 years I've seen the best in education and, under the Conservatives, the worst — scrapped Sure Start and Building Schools for the Future, a narrowed curriculum, failed recruitment, ignored inquiry recommendations and an Ofsted system not fit for purpose. In six months this Government has produced a Bill that reverses that, listening to charities, professionals, parents and children. I want to focus on home-schooling: the relationship between many families and local authorities is adversarial and must be reset. The register is vital to stop children slipping through the cracks, and parents must not feel forced into home-schooling because SEND provision was dismantled or because schools offloaded their children.
Children growing up in our country, and in my city of Portsmouth, deserve the very best start in life and nothing less. As a teacher for 24 years, I have seen the best in education and unfortunately, under the Conservatives, the very worst. The best journey in life is not easy, and it is shameful that under the last Government we saw the scrapping of Sure Start and Building Schools for the Future, the narrowing of the curriculum, a failure to meet targets in recruitment and retention, a lack of joined-up services in education and health, a lack of child protection, the ignoring of inquiry recommendations and an Ofsted system that is not fit for purpose. In short, there was a disregard for our children’s future. In just six months, this Government have introduced a Bill that seeks to reverse that situation. The Bill is innovative, and importantly, in drafting the measures the Government have listened to the voices of charities, professionals, parents, children and young people. The Bill provides an opportunity to truly transform lives. The measures will take action in the wake of appalling and tragic child abuse cases; create a register of children not in school; save families in Portsmouth potentially £500 a year per child through the creation of breakfast clubs; cap branded uniform; introduce national pay and conditions for teachers; and ensure that kinship carers have clear guidance. I could continue with this list because the Bill sets out so many more actions to benefit the wellbeing of children, but I want to concentrate on home-schooling. The relationship between many families and local authorities on home-schooling is adversarial and characterised by mistrust. That relationship must be reset. The register is vital to stop children slipping through the cracks. It is crucial that home-schooling is a clear choice and, when chosen, is not a battle between parents and local authorities. Parents must not feel they have no choice but to home-school because the previ…
I welcome that VAT on private schools will fund breakfast clubs — I urge the Secretary of State to learn from Mattersey primary, one of the country's smallest schools, which runs one for £1 a day. Home-schooling can be valuable, but it has also become a vehicle that puts vulnerable children at greater risk, whether they're hidden like Sara Sharif or controlled by extreme religious groups, so we should all support oversight and registration. On the abuse scandal: child abuse is in every corner of our country — my constituent Terry Lodge was enslaved as a child in a foundry in white, rural England. Giving one kind of child abuse priority over others is obscene; a survivor messaged me that they want justice and accountability, not another seven-year, multi-million-pound inquiry stating the obvious.I welcome the announcement by the Chancellor that the money raised from VAT on private schools will fund breakfast clubs for pupils in my constituency, giving them the best start to the day. I want to highlight Mattersey primary school in my constituency, a rural school that is one of the smallest in the country, with only 38 pupils, 51% of whom, shockingly, receive pupil premium funding. The school currently runs a breakfast club for £1 a day and has applied to be an early adopter of the free breakfast club scheme. As the policy is rolled out across the country, I urge the Secretary of State to learn from the school how it runs its breakfast club, and I invite her to visit the school. For some children, home-schooling has been valuable and enabled them to be educated in surroundings where they feel safe and can achieve their very best. However, there are huge dangers and, in some cases, home-schooling has become a vehicle that have put vulnerable children at greater risk. I am concerned by seeing too many children out in the streets during school hours, with parents caught up in a generational cycle of benefit dependency and their children missing out on school because they are supposedly being home-schooled. At an early age, those children are already facing a future of living on benefits and in a black economy culture. That concern is amplified where children are being hidden, whether they are like Sara Sharif or part of extreme religious groups controlling children’s lives and welfare, in which the victims of abuse are silenced. All of us can and should support the Government’s recommendations for oversight and registration in this sector. The previous MP for Bassetlaw, Lord Mann, gave evidence on behalf of more than 30 people to Professor Jay’s inquiry. He and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) were the only MPs who did that. In Bassetlaw, I sat and listened to victims of child abuse. This is a crisis in all communities. The idea that the…
- We've seen the best of this House recently, and the speeches today from the Members for Dorking and Horley and Skipton and Ripon were excellent — but tonight I may see Members vote against measures to protect children to make a political statement. To anyone thinking of supporting the amendment: doing so blocks the single child identifier and the register of children not in school, and you can still campaign for inquiries if the Bill passes. On uniforms, I set up the Lichfield Back to School Bank three years ago — last year we helped over 120 families, and a parent reduced to tears with relief at getting free uniform is the real-world impact we should focus on.
I am still quite a new Member, but over the last months, we have been privileged to see the best of the House; its support for the fight in Ukraine and the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill spring to mind. Even in this afternoon’s debate, the speeches from the hon. Member for Dorking and Horley (Chris Coghlan) and the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Sir Julian Smith) were excellent contributions that show the House in an exceptional light. Unfortunately, this evening, I may yet see the disappointing spectacle of Members choosing to vote against measures to protect children, solely so that they can make a political statement. That is a significant concern. I reconfirm to any Members on the Opposition Benches who are thinking of supporting the amendment that if they do, they are voting to block the Bill; they are declining to give it a Second Reading. In blocking the Bill, they are blocking the single child identifier and the register of children not in school, which are steps that the Government are taking to protect vulnerable children. We have heard from some Members that they want to call for an inquiry in certain places. They can still do that if the Bill passes Second Reading, as I hope it will. There is nothing in the Bill to stop such inquiries, or to prevent people from continuing to campaign for them. By voting against the Bill—to support the amendment is to vote against the Bill—they are voting against measures to protect children to make a political point. That is not acting in the great traditions of this place. I could talk for over an hour on this matter, but I have a minute left, so I will touch on school uniform. Around three years ago, alongside business, schools and the community, I set up Lichfield Back to School Bank, a uniform recycling scheme. Last year, we supported more than 120 families, and around 4% of the city’s school pupils picked up a uniform from us. We prevented six tonnes of carbon emissions through that alone. That,…
- My partner works for a teacher training provider. This Bill is a real step towards closing the gaps children fall through — parents will welcome cheaper uniforms, breakfast clubs in every primary, and the crackdown on profiteering in high-needs care. Beyond the Bill we need progress on children's happiness and SEND, and the new duty to report safeguarding concerns will save lives. The amendment is a lengthy hodgepodge that would delay action on safeguarding, and I fundamentally disagree with it — if the Opposition keep weaponising the most sensitive issues, even as a fundraising opportunity, they will deserve to remain in opposition.
I want to make the House aware that my partner works for a teacher training provider. The Bill represents a real step towards closing the gaps through which children are falling. Parents and carers in Birmingham Northfield will welcome the measures in the Bill to help keep the cost of school uniforms down, to extend free breakfast clubs to every primary school, and to tackle the profiteering by the pirates of the high needs, which my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Steve Yemm) spoke about so convincingly. I agree with Members from across the House who have said that beyond the Bill, we need to see progress in this Parliament on our children’s happiness and on SEND. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the new duty to report safeguarding concerns will protect children and save lives. May I say how welcome it is to see in the Bill the name of the safeguarding Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips)? Child abuse is the cruellest and most cowardly of crimes, and few have done as much as her to champion victims. The public hounding that we have seen in the past week, which some Members of this House have failed to condemn, represents a threat to public safety, a disgrace to public life and an insult to survivors of grooming and abuse. Some of my constituents will take an interest in the vote on the Conservative amendment as well as on the Bill. I want to be clear: the amendment is a lengthy hodgepodge of objections to the Bill, and I fundamentally disagree with it; it would have the effect of delaying action on safeguarding. I conclude by saying to Opposition Front Benchers that if they continue with the opportunistic weaponising of the most sensitive and serious issues, which we have learned over the last day has extended to using this matter as a fundraising opportunity, they will remain in opposition and will deserve to do so.
I pay tribute to the family of my constituent Holly Newton and to Northumberland Domestic Abuse Services. This landmark legislation is a return to grown-up, solution-based policymaking. Too many parents in my constituency find uniform costs prohibitive, an unfair burden when sending children to genuinely world-class local schools. Smaller schools have suffered from a county council not focused enough on children's needs, with poor school transport and SEND provision I hear about at almost every surgery — parents feel schools like Bellingham middle school have been abandoned. I thank the ministerial team for their relentless focus on the practical needs of my constituents and on smaller schools.It is a privilege to be called to speak in this debate. I will focus my remarks on the impact of this Bill on schools and parents in my constituency. However, first I pay tribute to the family of Holly Newton from my constituency, and to Northumberland Domestic Abuse Services, which campaigns tirelessly to provide protection for victims and young people in my constituency. This landmark legislation is a return to grown-up, sensible, solution-based politics and policymaking, which for 14 years this country has been denied. Unfortunately, all too often, parents in my constituency find the cost of uniform prohibitive. That additional cost places a burden on families who should be focused on sending their children to what will be, and in many cases are, genuinely world-class schools in my constituency. I was privileged to visit Acomb first school, Longhorsley Church of England first school and Hexham middle school before Christmas. I will be off on another school visit on Friday. The Bill is merely the start for this child-focused and child-centric Government. I am incredibly grateful to the Secretary of State for joining me on a pre-election visit to the middle school in Corbridge, where we met children and students, and where soon I will be pounding the pavements and knocking on doors for our excellent council candidate. I am probably the first Member to mention the local elections in 2025, so I guess it is now open season. Smaller schools across my constituency have really suffered from a county council that is not focused enough on the needs of parents and children. There is a lack of school transport provision, which I have spoken about in this place, and a lack of SEND provision, which I hear about at almost every single surgery that I hold. Genuine concerns have also been raised about Bellingham middle school. Parents and residents feel that the Conservative-run administration at Northumberland County Hall has simply abandoned the school and is content to let it…
- Childhood is precious, yet 3.5 million children are growing up in absolute poverty and an estimated 300,000 are missing from the education system. The previous Government's lack of urgency made children more vulnerable, and their failure to implement a single Jay recommendation made it easier for groomers everywhere. In Croydon the council has had to find almost £87 million for child services, with 31% of children in poverty. The Bill cuts the cost of school through breakfast clubs and uniform limits, and prevents children falling through the cracks with a register of home-educated children and a unique identifier — it is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and we will finally put our children's wellbeing first.
Childhood is a precious thing. It can shape us or break us. Too many childhoods have been stolen—by poverty, abusers and the inaction of the previous Government. In Britain today, 3.5 million children are growing up in absolute poverty. More are being placed in unregistered children’s homes, and it is estimated by the Education Policy Institute that 300,000 children are missing from the education system. Although Opposition Members seem to have woken up to the evils of child abuse and exploitation, they cannot deny that their lack of care and urgency on these issues has made our children more vulnerable. Their failure to act has created an environment in which it is estimated that almost half a million children experience some sort of sexual abuse in this country every year, and their failure to implement a single recommendation from the Jay report has made it easier for groomers in every corner of our country to continue to rob our children of their childhood, their future and their dignity. That is the cost of the previous Government’s do-nothing approach to child abuse, and they should be ashamed. The previous Government’s failure has also seen councils struggle to cover the spiralling cost of placements. In Croydon, where I am privileged to be an MP, the council has had to cough up almost £87 million to cover the cost of child services. With 31% of children there growing up in the shadow of poverty, Croydon’s young people have been failed by the inaction of the previous Government. It is time to end the previous Government’s addiction to failing our children, and support the Bill. The Bill cuts the cost of sending children to school by introducing free breakfast clubs and tackling the cost of school uniforms. It also prevents vulnerable children from falling through the cracks by bringing in a register of children who are educated from home, and introducing a unique identifier, so that children are visible across the system. The Bill is the single biggest piece…
Children growing up in Bournemouth deserve the best start, and I wouldn't be here but for the teachers of my childhood — Mr Garner and Mrs Moore, who stayed late so I had a safe, warm place to do my homework. I welcome this Bill because it will help every child achieve and thrive, focusing on disadvantaged children and those with SEND, where Bournemouth has a particular crisis. Free breakfast clubs will get children ready to learn, and limiting branded uniform items could save parents over £50 a child — only this week a constituent raised uniform costs with me. We should be listening to local educational experts, not Conservative Members, who have disgraced themselves in this debate.Children growing up in Bournemouth deserve the best start in life—nothing less. Whoever you are, and wherever you come from, you should be able to go as far as your talents take you, and those talents should be rigorously, systematically and compassionately nourished for everyone. I would not be here but for the teachers of my childhood. I thank Alan Garner and Christine Moore—it feels really weird to name them in full. I thank Mr Garner and Mrs Moore, who did so much to enable me to get here. They stayed late in the classroom so that I could have a safe, warm place to do my homework. They inspired me to do better when circumstances told me that I could not, so thank you to them. The reality is that for many children, opportunity is too often limited, and their background can have a decisive impact on the life that they can build. I welcome the Bill because it will help every child to achieve and thrive at a school with excellent teaching and high standards. It will focus on disadvantaged children and those with special educational needs and disabilities. In Bournemouth, we have a particularly significant SEND crisis. The Bill will get children ready for the school day by providing free breakfast clubs in primary schools. I want to give a shout-out to Pokesdown community primary school. Chef Russ and Ali Bayliss are two fantastic leaders providing nutritious breakfasts for young children. The Bill will ease the financial burden on parents by limiting the number of branded uniform items. I am particularly pleased about that, because only this week, I was contacted by a constituent, Richard Merghani, based in Southbourne, who raised concerns about the cost of school uniforms. I welcome the Government’s proposal; estimates show that it could save parents over £50 per child on the back-to-school shop. I want to bring the voice of constituents and local educational experts into this debate. I am thinking of David Nayler, who was the headteacher at Stourfield junior schoo…
I stepped from the classroom — as a former deputy headteacher — to this House because under the previous Government we lost sight of what matters most: that children are happy, healthy and safe. I've worked in schools where 50% of students were disadvantaged and still exceeded expectations, but I've also seen deep, growing divides. Educational inequality is the defining challenge of our time. One in five children is now regularly absent, rising towards one in four, with 158,000 severely absent. The Bill reverses that tide by strengthening safeguarding, easing financial burdens through cheaper uniforms and free breakfast clubs, and ending extortionate profit-making in children's care.There are a few reasons why I put my head above the parapet and entered frontline politics and stepped from the classroom benches as a former deputy headteacher to the green Benches of this House to represent families in Wolverhampton North East, but none are closer to my heart than this: under the previous Conservative Government, we lost sight of what is most important—that children are happy, healthy and safe. I have seen the best of what education can offer. I have worked with brilliant teachers and hard-working, dedicated support staff. I have worked in schools where 50% of students were disadvantaged—schools that exceeded expectations despite the odds. But I have also seen the deep and growing divides in our education system—divides that do not stop at the school gate but spill out into wider society, and the Bill will take important steps to address them. Educational inequality is the defining challenge of our time. Disadvantaged students have always faced hurdles, but, in recent years, those hurdles have become insurmountable for many, inflamed by the pandemic and the cost of living crisis. Schools in Wolverhampton and Willenhall and across the country are battling a worrying rise in school absences. One in five children are now regularly absent, and that figure is rising to one in four. Some 158,000 children nationally are severely absent, missing over half of their school sessions. The scale of the crisis is staggering. It is the equivalent of our Wolves’ Molineux stadium being filled five times over with children who have missed half the school year. Those children are not just missing lessons; they are missing the foundation for a better future. The Bill takes the important steps to reverse that tide. By strengthening safeguarding for every child, it protects the most vulnerable. By easing the financial burden on families, including cutting costs of school uniforms, and by committing to free breakfast clubs in every primary school, it tackles a simple ye…
For the record, my wife is a SENCO in a local authority school in Bexley. On looked-after children, I welcome increased Ofsted oversight, the financial oversight regime and the power to cap profits of children's home providers and fostering agencies — my own borough had the largest children's services overspend of any London borough. I also welcome the changes in Clause 47 through Clause 50 on admissions: in my borough over 50% of children in some schools live outside it, and in a borough that is 79% academised we rely on academies' goodwill — even Conservative councillors who cheered academisation now complain they've lost control over admissions. A vote for the amendment is a vote against the Bill and against the safety of our children.For the record, my wife is employed as a special educational needs co-ordinator in a local authority school in the London borough of Bexley. I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Bill on aspects relating to looked-after children and academies. On looked-after children, the Bill would make a series of changes on accommodation, as colleagues have commented, which include increasing Ofsted oversight of organisations that operate multiple children’s homes or independent fostering agencies, introducing a financial oversight regime for certain independent agencies and children’s home providers, and allowing the Secretary of State to cap the profits of children’s home providers and independent fostering agencies. From my years as a local councillor, I know how badly those changes are needed. My local authority in Bexley, like many others, has struggled to control those areas with regulation and struggled with the financial aspects. Last year, we saw the largest children’s services overspend of any London borough as a result of those issues. I therefore welcome the measures to limit the profits of specified non-local authority, Ofsted-registered social providers of children’s homes and fostering agencies, which have continually raised their costs far above inflation to profit from the taxpayer and from the care costs of our most vulnerable children. I welcome the changes in clauses 47 to 50 to school admission arrangements, requiring schools and local authorities to co-operate to manage admissions and giving local authorities the power to direct academy schools to admit pupils. In my local authority, we have schools where over 50% of the children do not live in our borough because of the admission arrangements that our academy schools have decided to put in place. In a borough where 79% of schools have been academised, we rely on their good will as to how many pupils they will admit each year from our local authority and how those applicants will be prioritis…
Setting aside the distracting and dangerous politics of some Conservative Members, this Bill will reduce pervasive inequality. In Aylesbury 15% of children live in absolute poverty, masked by the perception of a wealthy Buckinghamshire. First, I support establishing core national standards from which all schools can build, plus more qualified teachers and an updated pay framework. Second, the cost-of-living measures matter — breakfast clubs save £450 a child and uniform limits £50, when one resident told me seven branded items cost £280. Third, the register of children out of school with a unique number tackles the "ghost children" a headteacher described to me; in Buckinghamshire the number missing education has doubled in two years.I wish to move away from the distracting, insulting and dangerous politics of some Conservative Members and return to the key principles of the Bill, which will reduce the pervasive inequality in our society. It will drive high standards throughout our education and care systems so that every child can achieve and thrive, no matter where and into what circumstances they were born. In Aylesbury, 15% of children live in absolute poverty. That reality is sometimes lost in the perception of Buckinghamshire as a wealthy place, which masks significant inequality. I will highlight three ways in which the Bill will make a difference to children and families struggling in my constituency. First, I support the Bill’s commitment to delivering high and rising standards for every child in school by establishing core national standards from which all schools can build and innovate. When I visit schools, I meet children full of hope and ambition and teachers determined to drive that ambition forward. However, budgets are stretched, staff recruitment is tough and standards across the sector are uneven. The Bill contains very welcome measures such as putting more qualified teachers in classrooms, and updating the pay and conditions framework for teachers, including in schools in areas with high levels of deprivation. I have heard great ideas in my constituency about the curriculum and assessment review, including from some brilliant pupils I spoke to at the Grange school. I look forward to seeing the outcomes of that review later this year. Secondly, I am pleased that the Bill will support the many parents and carers who are struggling with the cost of living. Free breakfast clubs will save parents and carers £450 per child, and limiting the number of branded school uniform items will save £50 per child in the back-to-school shop. One Broughton resident told me that seven branded items cost them £280—seven items that their child will grow out of or lose before they knew it. They sai…
I welcome the measures to drive up standards and protect children — it's a shame so much cynical politics has been played. In Sandwell 37% of local children are eligible for free school meals against 27% nationally, and the rosy picture the Conservatives paint isn't one we recognise: GCSE and A-level attainment completely stagnated under them, with the proportion getting two A-levels 10 points below the national average. That's not because Sandwell children are less smart — the system hasn't worked. This Bill puts more qualified teachers in front of classes, creates a cutting-edge national curriculum, and through breakfast clubs gives children hungry minds, not hungry bellies. It is the single biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation.I welcome the measures that the Secretary of State has set out to drive up standards and protect children. It is just a shame that so much cynical politics has been played in relation to the Bill in recent days. One of the best parts of being a new MP has been visiting local schools, from Yew Tree primary to Tividale Hall, and seeing smiling faces excited about the future. However, it is a sad reality that children in my constituency and across the country have been let down—not by their hard-working teachers, but by a system in which public services have crumbled, rising special educational needs and disabilities have gone unmet, and children have slipped through the cracks. A central mission of this Labour Government is to break down barriers to opportunity. Every child deserves the best start in life, but we know that the playing field is not level, and we joined the Labour party to do something about it. In Sandwell, 37% of local children are eligible for free school meals, compared with 27% of children nationally. Education should be the springboard that breaks the link between the circumstances of a person’s birth and what they can achieve, but something is not working. In Sandwell, we do not recognise the rosy picture painted by the Conservative party—that everything is great in schools and all teachers love their jobs. The 18-year-olds who left sixth form in July 2024 have spent their whole school career under a Conservative Administration, and in that time, GCSE and A-level attainment has completely stagnated in my area of Sandwell. Anyone who looked at a graph of level 2 and level 3 attainment locally under the previous Labour Government would have seen a steady climb. Children did better and better in school, but over the period of the last Conservative Government, that progress has ground to a complete halt. We have been stuck in a situation where the proportion of children in Sandwell attaining two A-levels or equivalent is 10 percentage points below th…
- I'll speak to three points. First, children who have breakfast perform and behave better, yet the cost-of-living crisis leaves too many parents unable to provide a morning meal — the greatest impact on life chances comes in the early years, so I hope the Government will keep under review extending free breakfast clubs to nursery schools.
I rise to speak to three points: free breakfast clubs, the clauses dealing with kinship care, and—having spent the past seven years managing a team of barristers on a public inquiry—the Opposition wrecking amendment. First, we all know that children who have breakfast perform better at learning, and—a bit like me—can be better behaved as well. However, with the cost of living crisis left to us by the last Government, far too many parents struggle to ensure that children get regular morning meals. Having been a chair of governors at a nursery school, I am keenly aware that the greatest impact we can make on a person’s life chances comes in the early years. The Derby Poverty Commission is exploring with partners how free breakfast clubs can be provided in nursery schools in Derby, and is looking to work with businesses to fund that. I hope the Government will keep under review whether in future the positive impact of free breakfast clubs can be extended to nursery schools as well as primary schools.
Isn't it also important to look at breakfast clubs for certain secondary schools, so teenagers get the breakfast they need for learning too?Does my hon. Friend agree that it is also important to look at breakfast clubs for certain secondary schools, to make sure that teenagers are also getting the breakfast that they deserve and need for learning?
- The evidence on the benefits of breakfast is clear. Second, the Bill requires local authorities to consider kinship care before issuing care proceedings, which leads to far better outcomes — in my years as a family barrister, delay and limbo were hugely damaging, and the situation is far worse now. Finally, having spent seven years on a public inquiry, I'm hugely disappointed by the wrecking amendment: the Opposition's newly discovered conviction smacks of point-scoring, the idea an inquiry could be done in a year is unrealistic, and inquiries cannot implement their own recommendations — that's our job, and wrecking this Bill won't achieve it.
The evidence is clear on the real benefits that breakfast can give our children and young people. Secondly, the Bill requires local authorities to consider kinship care before they issue proceedings for a child to go into the care system. Avoiding taking children into care when it is safe to do so leads to far better outcomes. In the first decade of my practice as a barrister, I spent significant time in family care proceedings; I was frustrated by delays then, and the situation now is far worse. Delay and limbo are hugely damaging to vulnerable children and their families. Finally, I am hugely disappointed by the Opposition wrecking amendment. I have spent the past seven years on a public inquiry, and I have some insight into the benefits and limitations of those inquiries. The Opposition’s newly discovered conviction that a further inquiry on child sexual exploitation is needed and their attempts to hijack this Bill smack of political point scoring and headline grabbing, and the suggestions we have heard that a further inquiry could be done in a year are wholly unrealistic. Inquiries can make recommendations, but they cannot implement them; that is our job, and wrecking this Bill will not achieve that.
- Nearly a decade after the national independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was set up, it is high time the victims who so bravely gave evidence see action.
I just wish to say that, nearly a decade after the national independent inquiry into child sexual abuse was set up, it is high time that the victims who so bravely gave evidence see action.
- I welcome this Bill because at its heart it puts children first. Parents have the right to decide whether their child is in school, but the state has a duty to ensure every child gets a high-quality education. In Hartlepool home-schooling has risen 370% since the pandemic, parents refusing to engage other than in writing has nearly doubled, and 200 children are missing from education entirely. Most parents do a phenomenal job, but where they don't, this Bill protects those children. We also have about 85 permanent exclusions against capacity for 28, so giving councils more power on exclusions will help. And I joined Labour because as a young teaching assistant I saw children come to school hungry — voting to end that for primary children is a proud moment for me.
I welcome this Bill because, at its heart, it puts children first. It does so in a number of ways, and I want to start by talking about children who are out of school. Parents have the right to decide whether their child is in school, and I support that principle absolutely, but the state has a duty to ensure that every child has a high-quality education. It is a fundamental right, not a privilege, and one that we must protect. This Bill addresses a fundamental shift that has taken place over the last few years. In Hartlepool, the number of children being home-schooled has increased by 370% since the pandemic. In the last year alone, the number of parents refusing to engage with the local authority in anything other than writing has nearly doubled. Added to that, the number of children missing from education, which is a completely separate measure, is now 200 in Hartlepool. We have a duty to protect those children and their education. The vast majority of parents do a phenomenal job in those circumstances, but we have to accept the truth that there are times when they do not, and this Bill protects those children. A second issue that I think is really important is exclusions. In Hartlepool we now have about 85 permanent exclusions—the capacity of the local authority to support such children is 28—and it is expected to double over the next year, without action. This is that action, and giving local authorities increased power to ensure that exclusions do not happen when they are not necessary will help local authorities such as Hartlepool. I want to finish by reflecting on the support that the Bill gives to families. We have heard about free breakfasts in every primary school. I joined the Labour party because, as a young teaching assistant, I saw children coming to school hungry every day. To be able to stand here today, knowing that I am about to vote to make sure that no primary school child ever faces that again is a proud moment for me, indeed. On school uniform…
- I'm supporting this Bill because of the children I've taught — most we never see grow up, though I've bumped into a few, including one who became a star striker for Harlow Town. I'm passionate about ensuring every young person has the best chance to fulfil their potential, and it's less about the type of school than the breadth of subjects on offer. I welcome the register of students not in school and the single unique identifier — and wearing my hat as chair of the all-party group for young carers, I ask that young carers form part of that identifier and of teacher training. The free breakfast clubs and uniform savings will genuinely help families in my constituency struggling with the cost of living.
When I thought about why I was going to support this Bill and why it is so important to me, I thought about the number of children I have taught over the years. The sad reality is that of all the young people we teach, the vast majority we do not get the opportunity to see again; we do not see them grow up or what they do. I am proud to say that I have bumped into a few of my former students over the years because some of them have gone into the teaching profession. One of them was actually in the “Death in Paradise” Christmas special the year before last, and one of them is the star striker for Harlow Town football club. There is the other side of that, however, and I once had the horrible experience of looking at the front page of the local newspaper and seeing two of my former students who had tragically died in a car accident, but perhaps I should not have mentioned that. I realised why I was so passionate about teaching and supporting young people, and that is because I feel so passionate, as many of my colleagues do, about ensuring that young people have the best possible opportunities to fulfil their potential. I truly believe that every young person has the potential to achieve if we give them the opportunity. I also believe that it is less about the type of school that young people go to, and more about the broad range of subjects that they can study, so that every young person has the opportunity to star. As I said earlier, I have some genuine concerns—I do not want to get into the politics of this, but I am concerned about the number of young people who have fallen through the gaps, certainly recently, and I welcome measures in the Bill to introduce a register of students who are not in school. I also welcome news about a single unique identifier. Wearing my hat as chair of the all-party group for young carers and young adult carers, I mention the importance of ensuring that young carers form part of that unique identifier and part of teacher training—jus…
I'll focus on the three things my constituents raise most. First, free breakfast clubs — another kept manifesto commitment — guaranteeing no child starts the day hungry and adding 30 minutes of childcare for working parents. Second, limiting branded uniform items to three, so no child or parent is deterred from a school by uniform cost. Third, the register of children not in school. On behalf of constituents who home-school excellently, I'll raise their concerns with the Minister: what safeguards will stop hackers accessing the registers, what will ensure local authorities take a consistent approach to collecting data, and what guidance will govern when councils intervene? And we must not vote for the wrecking amendment — the time for words is over.With time so short, I will focus on the three areas that my constituents raise with me most frequently. We have heard about them today. First is the introduction of free breakfast clubs, which is the latest in a long line of manifesto commitments that we have kept over the past six months, despite objections and comments from Conservative Members. That provision will guarantee that no child has to start the day hungry, and it also creates an extra 30 minutes of childcare, which will allow parents to be flexible with their working arrangements. The second area—my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Dave Robertson) spoke passionately about this—is the limit that the Bill places on the number of branded items that a school can require a parent to purchase for their child. That limit will now be three. This is exactly the right thing to do. School uniform can get expensive as it is, and no child or parent should be deterred from choosing a school because of the cost of its uniform. The third issue relates to children who are not in school. The Bill will create a register of children who are not in school, so that local authorities will be in a position to ensure that all children are being taught in a suitable environment. This is excellent work; it is a minimum standard, and it is absolutely required. I have been approached by constituents who home-school, and they do an excellent job. They wanted to share some concerns with me, which I promised I would raise with the relevant Minister, so I hope she will excuse me as I take the opportunity to do that now. First, when the registers are introduced, what safeguards will be in place to ensure that hackers, and others who try to breach the security of the local authority, cannot access them? Of course, the answers might not be forthcoming today; they might come in Committee. Secondly, what will be done to ensure that all local authorities take the same approach to the registers, so that we do not get hundreds of differen…
I warmly welcome the Bill and the commitment to tackling the SEND crisis. The register of children not in school is causing concern among SEND families in my constituency — not because of the Bill but because of the battles they fight to get their child's needs met. As a survivor of the SEND jungle myself, I understand their fear that a register may bring pressure for their child to attend school without the right support, when EHCP requests rose 40% last year and almost 30% of decisions took six months or more. Parents don't withdraw a child lightly — one faces unaffordable fines for non-attendance. Will the Secretary of State reassure these parents, and consider whether the register could distinguish those who home-school by choice from those who do so because they have no choice?I warmly welcome the Bill and the Secretary of State’s commitment to tackling the SEND crisis in our schools—a crisis that developed over more than a decade of neglect, and which will not be resolved overnight. The Bill’s proposal to introduce a duty for local authorities to keep a register of children who are not in school is causing concern among families with children who have special educational needs and disabilities in my constituency. The concern is based not on the Bill but on the battles that parents find themselves fighting in order to ensure that their child’s needs are met. As a survivor of the SEND jungle, I understand the state of perpetual worry that families live with, and I understand that they are fearful that the introduction of a register may result in increased pressure from the local authority for their child to attend school without the support they need. Last year saw a 40% increase in the number of requests for education, health and care plans in Scarborough and Whitby from the previous year, and almost 30% of decisions on EHCPs took six months or longer, leaving children without the support they needed while waiting. If a child does receive an EHCP, parents often feel that the provision offered does not correspond to their needs as there is a shortage of key professionals and funding is often pooled rather than used for the one-to-one support that they really need. In my experience, parents do not take the decision to withdraw their child from school lightly. One constituent has faced fines for her son’s non-attendance that she cannot afford to pay and problems at work because he is at home. Another constituent, Karen, who runs the marvellous charity Closer Communities in Scarborough, which supports families in this situation, has struggled to get appropriate support for her own son. Karen, who was a senior manager in the NHS, was forced to put her own career on hold, which inevitably had financial implications for her family. Withdrawing a…
Every child deserves the best possible start, and this Bill is a vital step. Free breakfast clubs in all primary schools support learning and wellbeing, and the cap on branded uniform items is welcome — in Morecambe and Lunesdale we run huge uniform hubs to cope. The register of children not in school is crucial to stop vulnerable children falling through the cracks, and I welcome the crackdown on illegal schools, where there have been horrific cases of abuse. On a personal view, faith selection should have no place in state-funded education — it is social selection by proxy — and I want a firm commitment to keeping the 50% cap on all schools.Every child deserves the best possible start in life, no matter their background or where they live, and this Bill is a vital step towards ensuring that for every child in the country. The Bill addresses ordinary families’ concerns, cuts the cost of the basics needed for school and ensures that every child has what they need to learn. The Bill is also the most significant piece of child protection legislation in a generation. It will protect the most vulnerable children and families. The introduction of free school breakfast clubs in all primary schools is a significant step in supporting children’s learning and wellbeing. I am also pleased to see the cap on branded uniform items included in the legislation. Too often the cost of uniforms is prohibitive. In Morecambe and Lunesdale we have huge uniform hubs to try to deal with that problem. Additionally, the Bill’s steps to regulate home education are crucial to stop vulnerable children from falling through the cracks. The introduction of a register for children not in school will ensure greater safeguards, particularly for those who may be at risk of exploitation or neglect. It is vital that every child has access to safe, high-quality education regardless of where that is given. I also welcome measures to crack down on illegal schools, where unfortunately we have seen many serious cases of abuse, including sexual abuse. Measures in the Bill will protect children from both poor schooling and the use of illegal schools to terrorise children. I put on record my thanks to Humanists UK, which has led a campaign for over a decade to crack down on illegal schools and has shone a light on some really horrific practices. I thank the Secretary of State for giving me and other MPs time to discuss the details of the Bill, including definitions of what “full time” means in the legislation, and a potential concern I have about opening up a gap to avoid the cap on faith selection. With little time left, I want to put forward a pe…
- Giving children a safe start with every opportunity to reach their potential is vital, and this Bill supports it. I'll focus on the national curriculum, introduced by Kenneth Baker in 1988 — one of a handful of progressive education reforms Opposition Members should be prouder of. It is the statutory standard for state schools but not compulsory for academies, which made sense when there were 203 of them in 2010; now there are over 10,000.
Giving children the very best start in life—a safe start where they have every opportunity to achieve their full potential—is vital. This Bill supports that. It introduces more robust measures to help keep children safe and it raises standards and opportunities in schools, so that children receive a high-quality, holistic education. It covers a huge number of areas—more than I could meaningly address in the short time I have available—so I will focus on the national curriculum. Introduced in 1988 by Kenneth Baker, the national curriculum is one of a handful of significant and progressive education reforms of the 1980s. Opposition Members should be more proud of it. It provides the statutory standard for school subjects, lesson content and attainment levels for state schools in England. However, it is not compulsory for academies. That made sense when academies were introduced in the early noughties, because in communities where there were significant levels of unmet need and low aspiration, it allowed school leaders the freedom to devise programmes of learning that helped to address the acute and embedded challenges that young people in those communities faced, after the decline and lack of investment in schools during the ’80s and early ’90s. By May 2010, when the last Labour Government left office, there were 203 of those academies. Now, there are over 10,000, following a significant expansion of the programme. I support the concept of academies—
- I do support the concept of academies — a great legacy of the previous Government — but because they needn't follow the national curriculum, some are gaming the system, and arts entries at GCSE have fallen over 50% since 2010, with some schools offering no art subjects at all. That matters for our economy, our standing and who we are. I welcome the move to a more holistic education, and breakfast clubs will help families in Derbyshire, where the county council added £1 to the cost of school dinners last year. But I ask the Minister to ensure councils like Derbyshire, where Ofsted found serious SEND issues, meet their duty so children relying on home-to-school transport can access breakfast clubs.
I do support the concept of academies; they are a great legacy of the previous Government. But because those schools do not have to follow the national curriculum, some are gaming the system by not teaching a full, holistic programme of subjects. There has been a massive decline—over 50%—in the number of arts entries at GCSE since 2010. Some schools offer no art subjects at all at GCSE level. That matters for our economy and the UK’s standing around the world, and for who we are as individuals, how we understand the world and how we interact with each other. I welcome the Bill’s measures to provide a more holistic education to children. I also want to speak briefly about breakfast clubs. They will be very welcome in Derbyshire, because Derbyshire county council increased the cost of school dinners by £1 last year—£150 a year—on top of what they already cost for parents. That will help with the cost of living crisis. But I ask that the Minister make sure that, as we implement this legislation—providing it goes through—we have the right checks and balances in place to ensure that local authorities such as Derbyshire, where Ofsted found serious issues with SEND, are fulfilling their statutory obligations to ensure that children who rely on home-to-school transport can access breakfast clubs.
For 30 years we've had cross-party consensus that schools improve through freedom plus accountability, and it worked: England rose from 21st to 7th in PISA maths while Wales went 29th to 27th, and disadvantaged children in England now do better than the average child in Wales. Yet this Bill takes us backwards. It removes the freedom to pay above national scales — United Learning uses it to pay 5.6% more, and Sir Jon Coles warns it will make retaining good teachers harder. It removes QTS freedom at a cost the Treasury puts at up to £127 million, ends curriculum freedom, gives the Secretary of State a sweeping new power to boss academies about, and abolishes the academy order for failing schools. Clause 50 lets councils block good schools from growing — the very reason the right hon. Member for Islington North welcomed it is the reason parents should fear it.Over the past 30 years we have had something that is quite unusual in politics: a degree of cross-party consensus about education in England. Schools in England have been improved by the magic formula of freedom plus accountability. It started in the late ’80s, was accelerated after 1997 by Labour and was accelerated further under the Lib Dem-Conservative Government in 2010. And it worked: England improved not just compared with the rest of the world, but compared with Scotland and Wales, where the opposite agenda was followed—academies were banned, league tables were abandoned and a progressive curriculum was installed. Between 2009 and 2022, England went from 21st to 7th in the PISA league table on maths, while Wales went from 29th to 27th. On science, England went from 11th to 9th, while Wales slumped from 21st to 29th. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies pointed out in a searing report titled “Major challenges for education in Wales”, amazingly, disadvantaged children in England are now doing better than the average child in Wales. Earlier, the Secretary of State talked about what the Bill would do for the working class. We have seen what Labour’s agenda has done for the working class in Wales. It was a similar story in Scotland, which collapsed from 15th to 25th in maths and from 11th to 26th in science. Other comparisons tell us the same. The trends in international mathematics and science study found that from 2011 to 2023, England’s rankings were all maintained or improved to become among the best in the western world. Meanwhile, what happened in Scotland and Wales? We do not know, because they withdrew from the test after bad results in 2007. Yet despite all that evidence, the Bill in front of us today takes us backwards. Never mind the things we did—the Government are undoing the best things that the last Labour Government did. As educators have pointed out, it is totally unclear what problem Ministers think they are trying to fix, but it is clear that it…
- Our amendment is the first chance to vote for a proper national inquiry into the grooming gangs. This started when Oldham asked for one, because a local inquiry cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath or requisition evidence — the two men leading the Greater Manchester investigation resigned because they were blocked. Last night Ministers said there should be local inquiries even as Keighley blocked one. IICSA was an important first step but barely touches grooming gangs — it looked at half a dozen places when there were 40 to 50, and those victims' voices have never been heard. A national inquiry doesn't stop anyone implementing the Jay recommendations, and so far zero people in authority have been held to account.
I am pressed for time, so I will see if I can get to the hon. Lady at the end. Our amendment is also the first opportunity that MPs will have during the Bill’s proceedings to vote for a proper national inquiry into the grooming gangs. As the Bill goes through, we will seek to make further amendments to ensure that this much-needed inquiry happens. The current discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there. It did so because a local inquiry would not have the powers needed: it cannot summon witnesses, cannot take evidence under oath and cannot requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men who led the Greater Manchester local investigation resign because they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry and say that there should instead be local inquiries. But there have been years over which they should have happened, and they have not happened. In many cases, the local officials are part of the problem and even part of the cover-up, so they cannot be the people to fix this. [Interruption.] Members are chuntering from a sedentary position, but take, for example, the case of Keighley, where my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years. [Interruption.] Last night, while Ministers were here saying that there should be a local inquiry, in Keighley they were blocking a local inquiry—even as they spoke. So that is not the answer. The Government hide behind the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. It was an important first step, but what it was not and never intended to be was a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. It looked at half a dozen—just half a dozen—places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were 40 to 50 places where grooming gangs operated ,and the voices of the victims in those places have never been heard. [Interruption.] Having a proper national inquiry does not stop anyone getting on and impl…
- Some people really do not want to hear the voices of the victims. The safeguarding Minister said there should be a national inquiry if victims want one — they are calling for one, so what are we waiting for? Sir Daniel Moynihan warned today that the sector is worried about what problem these changes are meant to fix and that it would be a terrible shame to water down reforms Labour introduced 20 years ago. I remember chaotic state schools in the '80s and '90s, with discredited progressive methods and good teachers ground down — the life chances of the kids I was at school with were flushed away by that disastrous ideology.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some people really do not want to hear the voices of the victims. [Interruption.] Even though no one in authority has been held to account, the Government seem to think that there is nothing further to be learned. I do not think that is right. This afternoon, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that there should a national inquiry if victims wanted one. Victims are calling for one, so what are we waiting for? There are real challenges that we should be facing: recruitment, discipline and attendance. Instead, we have a Bill that just takes us backwards. As one of the nation’s leading educators, Sir Daniel Moynihan, said today on “World at One”: “We are worried in the sector about what the problems are that the changes are designed to fix. We can offer better pay. It’s not clear why constraining that solves a problem. Why academies…should be constrained beats me…We’re hoping that some of this will be amended. It would be a terrible shame if the reforms that Labour introduced over 20 years ago…were watered down.” Likewise, the Confederation of School Trusts is warning that the loss of academy freedoms proposed in the Bill risk making it “more difficult for trusts to do the hard work of improving schools in the most challenging circumstances”. I remember what state schools were like in the ’80s and ’90s. In my school, it was chaotic, with loads of fights, discredited progressive teaching methods, failed kids and good teachers being ground down. [Interruption.] You think it is funny, but the life chances of the kids I was at school with were flushed away by your disastrous ideology. [Interruption.]
- On a happier note, I also saw the best of state education — an amazing sixth form benefiting from Conservative freedoms, with an inspiring principal who helped so many kids in Huddersfield. Freedom works, and I would not be here without it. I am heartbroken by this Bill, which trashes 30 years of cross-party reforms we can see have worked — I am begging Ministers to change their minds.
I am. On a happy note, I also got to see the best of state education. I went to an amazing sixth form that benefited from the freedoms that the Conservative Government gave it. I pay tribute to the inspiring principal of that college, Kevin Conway, who helped so many kids in Huddersfield in his lifetime. I saw what state education could be. I saw the best of it. Freedom works, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I would not be here today if it did not. I am heartbroken by the Bill. It genuinely trashes the cross-party reforms that we have had over 30 years. We can see they have worked, yet we are trashing them. I am begging Ministers—begging them—to change their minds.
Contrary to the doom and gloom, there has been a fantastic response to the Bill. It delivers our election commitments: high and rising standards, a good local school for every family, qualified expert teachers, and breaking down the barriers to opportunity. On the Conservative amendment — the child sexual abuse scandal is sickening, and we must turn the lessons of IICSA into action to protect children now. The Conservatives know that if their amendment passed, the Bill would fall, taking with it the biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation: the register of children not in school, a consistent identifier for every child, and multi-agency child protection teams in every area.Contrary to the doom and gloom that we have just heard, there has been a fantastic response to the Bill, and I thank all Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to what has been a largely well-informed debate. I particularly thank the Chair of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), and the spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson). Both made constructive speeches, and, while laying down issues for us to consider during our deliberations, demonstrated a real commitment to working with us on the Bill’s delivery. The hon. Members for Bath (Wera Hobhouse), for Horley (Chris Coghlan), and for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) also made excellent speeches. Today’s Second Reading marks the next step in the delivery of the commitments made by the Labour party at the general election—the commitments to bring children and education back to the centre of our national conversation, to deliver high and rising standards in our education and care systems, so that every child can achieve and thrive, to ensure that every family can count on a good local school, to give children access to qualified expert teachers, and to break down the barriers to opportunity for every child in every community. It is a significant Bill that puts children first. This is action, not words. Let me deal briefly with the Conservative amendment. The child sexual abuse scandal is sickening. It is vital that we learn lessons from past failures, including the issues uncovered by the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, and turn that into action to protect children now. The Conservatives know that if their amendment were passed, the Bill would fall. They also know the Bill will deliver landmark reforms to safeguarding and children’s social care. It is the biggest piece of child protection legislation in a generation, and we are bringing it forward to prioritise children. It will help…
- If I give way, I'll lose the time to credit everyone who spoke. We must act, strengthen the law and take forward the recommendations of the inquiries that have already taken place — which is why we reject today's political opportunism and focus our efforts on vulnerable children instead of chasing headlines.
If I do, I will not have much time to give credit to everyone who has spoken in the debate. I genuinely want to pay tribute to Members for the huge number of contributions made by Members from across the House. This Government firmly believe that we must act, strengthen the law and take forward the recommendations of the independent inquiries that have already taken place, and that is why we will reject today’s political opportunism. Instead of chasing headlines, we want to focus our efforts and our actions on vulnerable children.
- No, I won't give way again. We are all united in wanting the Bill to work for children. I was surprised by the shadow Secretary of State decrying it as "educational vandalism" — I know what educational vandalism looks like: unhappy children, falling standards, undervalued staff, crumbling buildings and SEND systems failing on every measure. That is the Conservatives' record. Central to the Bill is cutting the cost of school: breakfast clubs in every primary and limits on branded uniform items. We are also introducing a duty for state schools and local authorities to co-operate on place planning and admissions.
No, I will not. I have said that I will not. I know that we are all united in our desire to ensure that the Bill works for children and young people across the country. I apologise if I am not able to respond to all the points that have been raised; there were a huge number of them, and we will have an opportunity to debate all those issues in the weeks ahead. This legislation will provide the safe and secure foundation that all children need, and I was surprised by the tone of the shadow Secretary of State’s opening remarks, in which she decried it as “educational vandalism”. I know what educational vandalism looks like: children unhappy in schools, standards falling, staff undervalued, school buildings crumbling, and special educational needs and disability systems failing on every measure. That is the Conservatives’ record on education. It is shameful, and it let down a generation of our children. We are determined to turn the page. Central to the Bill is cutting the cost of sending children to school. In our manifesto, we committed to offering breakfast clubs in every primary school; through this Bill, we will deliver those clubs, which will ensure that all children get the chance to have a soft start to the school day and are ready to learn. The Bill will also address parents’ concerns about school uniforms by limiting the number of branded items, which will put money back into parents’ pockets. Many Members have spoken powerfully about the impact of poverty on children in their constituency, including my hon. Friends the Members for Bury North (Mr Frith), for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), for Nottingham East (Nadia Whittome), for Hitchin (Alistair Strathern), for Sherwood Forest (Michelle Welsh), for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), for West Bromwich (Sarah Coombes) and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash). All of them know that tackling child poverty will improve the life chances of our children, and today we h…
- How is our reasoned amendment, which would allow a national debate on this horrendous grooming, a wrecking amendment? Given the numbers it is not, and what you have said on the Floor of the House is not right.
The Minister is most generous. I would like her to explain how our reasoned amendment, which would allow a national debate on this horrendous grooming, is a wrecking amendment. Given the numbers, it is not a wrecking amendment, and what she has said on the Floor of the House is not right.
- I'm not sure the right hon. Lady has read the amendment, which declines to give the Bill a Second Reading. The majority of Members agree the Bill is crucial for safeguarding children. We had the national inquiry, the report and the recommendations — and no one would disagree with putting into practice the 20 recommendations we know will make a difference. This Government is about action; the time for talk is over.
I am not sure whether the right hon. Lady has read the amendment, which declines to give the Bill a Second Reading. The majority of Members agree that the Bill will be crucial for safeguarding children, and I think we have dealt with the many questions understandably raised about child sexual abuse and the truth and justice that must be secured for victims of these horrendous crimes. We had that national inquiry, we had that report, and we have the recommendations, which have been discussed at length today. I again commend my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham for her powerful speech, and I do not think anyone would disagree with wanting to put into practice the 20 recommendations that we know will make a difference to children. This Government are about action. The time for talk is over. We want to bring about the changes that we know will change lives, so I am grateful to hon. and right hon. Members for their contributions today.
- We recognise the importance of admission authorities setting their own admission numbers and of good schools expanding where there is local demand. There has been huge misunderstanding of the academy measures — we want high and rising standards across the system and to break the link between background and success, looking beyond the sign above the door to the children within. At no point have we said teachers' pay is too high; we recently implemented a 5.5% pay award, and this Bill does not seek to reduce teachers' pay. We will fix the SEND system by improving mainstream inclusion while keeping special school places for the most complex needs, and we will require local authority consent to home-educate children subject to child protection inquiries, plans, or in special schools.
We have heard a lot from the right hon. Gentleman today. Contrary to the comments made by the right hon. Members for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) and for Stone, Great Wyrley and Penkridge (Sir Gavin Williamson), we recognise the importance of admission authorities being able to set their own published admission numbers, and of good schools being able to expand where there is local demand. There seems to have been a huge amount of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the Bill’s measures on academies. Unfortunately, I simply do not have time to refute it all today, but we are determined to drive high and rising standards right across our school system, to ensure that schools and children have the support to thrive, and to break the link between background and success. That means looking beyond the sign above the door of a school to the children within, but we cannot achieve that without quality teachers. I pay tribute to all our school workforces, who work tirelessly in the service of children and young people. Wild claims were made today; the shadow Secretary of State asked why the Government were telling teachers that their pay is too high. At no point have we said that teachers’ pay is too high; indeed, we recently implemented a 5.5% pay award for teachers. To be clear, this Bill does not seek to reduce teachers’ pay. We recognise the good practice and flexibility that academies have benefited from, and the focus of our measures is providing a core offer to all state schools while still leaving them the flexibility to innovate. A number of Members have rightly highlighted the challenges around SEND, including my hon. Friends the Members for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Rand), and for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume). We know the challenges relating to special educational needs and disabilities. We are absolutely determined to fix the system by improving inclusivity in mainstream schools while ensuring that there are special sch…