Committee stage in the Commons
The twelfth sitting completed clause-by-clause scrutiny of the schools chapters — ending the academy presumption, protecting faith-school admissions, and taking evidence on free school meals and EHCP delays — before adding a government new clause barring care leavers from being found intentionally homeless.
NOBefore I turn to Amendment 85, one question for the Minister to check with officials if needed: under Clause 51, will a local authority be able to object to the published admissions number of a school *in another* local authority, or only schools in its own area? As drafted, the Bill does not tell us. On the substance: Clause 51 is effectively the other half of the shift away from academisation — it ends the rule that all new schools must be academies. Combined with Clause 44, it will leave us with two parallel types of school indefinitely, sustaining the confusion of local authorities being simultaneously regulator and provider. Ministers say they want consistency, but this pulls in the opposite direction. Where is this taking us in the long term — are the Government content to have local authority schools and academies side by side forever, or do they have a different end-state in mind?It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I will begin by asking a question up front, so that the Minister has time to confer with officials if she needs to in order to reply. We learned during the debate on clause 50 that, as well as existing schools, local authorities will be able to go to the schools adjudicator regarding school openings. Will a local authority be able to object to the published admissions number of a school in another local authority, or is it limited to schools within its own area? Possible answers are: yes, they will be able to object about another authority; no, they will not be able to; or, the Government have not decided yet. As drafted, the Bill does not tell us what the Government’s intent is. I will now speak to our amendment 85 and clause 51. Local authorities can already establish local authority schools if there is really no one who wants to start a new school, although, as the Government’s notes to the Bill rightly say, the current legal framework for opening new schools is tilted heavily towards all new schools—mainstream, special, and so on—being academies. As we have discussed, clause 44 repeals the requirement to turn failing local authority schools into academies; clause 51 is effectively the other half of that shift away from academisation. It ends the rule that new schools must be academies and allows local authorities to choose to set up new local authority-run schools instead. Both changes will reduce the flow of new schools into the best performing trusts. For that reason, we think it is a mistake. Ministers keep saying that they want greater consistency —that seems to be one of the guiding principles of the Bill—but in the long term the combination of clause 51 and clause 44 will leave us with two types of school. That will sustain the confusion that we talked about in previous debates, where the local authority is simultaneously the regulator and a provider in the market it is regulating. The sch…
We broadly welcome Clause 51 — we desperately need new special schools, and the previous Government approved fewer than half of the 85 applications from councils to open SEND free schools in 2022. Amendment 48 addresses a loophole: the 50% faith-selection cap applies to academies and will continue to do so, but under Clause 51 not all new schools will be academies. The amendment simply brings all new schools into line with the existing principles on faith-based admissions for academies — it looks like a drafting oversight, and I hope the Government will support it.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. Broadly, the Liberal Democrats welcome clause 51 and its counterpart, not least because we desperately need new special schools. The previous Government approved fewer than half of the 85 applications from councils to open SEND free schools in 2022. This is a real part of unblocking that, so we agree with the Government. We tabled amendment 48 because a potential loophole is created in the now well-established rules on faith-based selection. Those rules apply to academies and will continue to do so, but under clause 51 not all new schools will be academies. The amendment would bring all new schools into line with the current established principles of faith-based selection for academies. It is a very simple amendment. I think the error was made inadvertently during drafting, and hopefully the Government will support it.
Clause 51 allows new schools to be opened without restrictions on type — academies, community schools or voluntary aided — which is very welcome. But it also creates the ability to open new 100% faith-selective schools, and that worries me. The 50% cap for academies was introduced in 2007 and extended to free schools by the coalition. When the legislation has allowed 100% faith selection in local authority competitions, it has happened — Cambridgeshire approved a 100% Church of England school that still operates on that basis, and we heard in evidence that the Catholic Education Service would seek 100% selection in oversubscribed areas. The data is clear: 100% faith-selective schools are less socioeconomically diverse, less ethnically diverse, and — per the Sutton Trust, the Office of the Schools Adjudicator and the LSE — less inclusive of disadvantaged children, children in care, and children with SEND. Scoring for religious attendance effectively favours those with more economic and social capital. I ask Ministers simply to consider the implications carefully.I rise to speak to clause 51, because there are some points I wish to raise about this part of the Bill allowing new schools to have 100% faith selection. Clause 51 allows new schools to be opened without ideological restrictions on their type; they could be academies, community schools or voluntary aided schools, which in my view is extremely welcome; but it also creates the ability to open new 100% faith-selective schools, which worries me. The current 50% cap on faith selection for academies was introduced by the Labour Government in 2007, and further embedded into free schools in 2010 by the coalition Government. The Education Act 2011 mandated that all new schools must be free schools, extending the cap’s reach. That 50% limit was supported by all three main parties. A scheme of local authority competitions similar to the one proposed in the clause operated from 2007 to 2012, in which we saw 100% faith-selective schools open. For example, Cambridgeshire county council ran a competition for a new school in which a 100% selective Church of England school won out over a proposal for a school with no religious character; the resultant school opened in 2017 and is still 100% faith selective. Another 100% religiously selective school was approved in the Peterborough council area. This has happened when the legislation has allowed for it. We heard in the first evidence session that the Catholic Education Service would seek, in areas of oversubscription, to use 100% faith selection. We heard from the Church of England that nationally its policy is to stick to 50%, but its structure means that dioceses can put forward proposals for new schools, and they are not bound by that national policy. Members might be sitting here thinking, “So what? What is the problem with 100% faith-selective schools?” The problem is that 100% faith-selective schools are less socioeconomically diverse than might be expected for their catchment area, and less socioeconomically diverse than scho…
There are two distinct reasons people argue for limiting faith-based admissions: objecting to religion's role in public life, and the claim that faith schools shut out others through social or academic selection by the back door. Those two concerns sometimes get conflated — and they are being conflated here, even if not deliberately.I rise to speak to amendment 48, which stands in the name of the hon. Member for Twickenham. There are two main reasons people seek to limit school admissions on the basis of faith. The first is that some people do not like religion, organised religion, or the involvement of the state with organised religion. That is a matter of belief for some people. The second is that it is sometimes said that faith-based admission policies shut out others from good schools. There is sometimes a sense that it is academic or social selection by the back door. The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale alluded to that. Some people—I am not saying this is the case with the hon. Lady—talk about the second issue when really they have in mind the first. One can be a proxy for the other.
- Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
- Both of those beliefs are ones I hold — and he is right that they get confused. The evidence I have cited, however, is squarely on the second: the socioeconomic selectivity of 100% faith schools. I am happy to provide the sources.
I do not wish to correct the right hon. Gentleman. I believe he is correct that the two get confused. I have both of those beliefs.
- All liberal democracies permit freedom of religious belief; we in England have always allowed — and actively integrated — denominational schools. The Church of England is the biggest name in primary education; the Catholic Church in secondary. The Education Act 1944 formalised the dual system, and the requirement that the Church contribute a share of capital (typically 10%, latterly 5%) is both a reasonable condition and a guarantee of independence — it means no future Government can simply nationalise those schools. The 50% cap made sense for free schools, where *any* group could come forward; it has never applied to voluntary aided schools. St Richard Reynolds Catholic College in Twickenham was opened as a VA school after 2012 and later converted to an academy — so 100% faith selection has remained legally available throughout. I want to check that the Government's proposals will not preclude new voluntary aided schools — and for those reasons, I cannot support Amendment 48.
I understand, acknowledge and respect what the hon. Lady says but, believe me, I do not need to see any more evidence on this subject, on which I have in my time perused large volumes. It is one of those issues—we talked the other day about another one—where the answer one wants can be found in the data. Let us step back a moment. All liberal democracies permit freedom of religious belief, but the way it manifests is different in different countries. There can be an approach such as that in the United States or in France, where secularism in education is written into law or the constitution. We in this country have taken a different approach. We have always allowed denominational schools. In fact, we have not just “allowed” it; denominational schools and faith schools have always been a key part of the system. The biggest name in primary education in Britain is the Church of the England; the biggest name in secondary education in England is the Catholic Church. It is not just in education that our country has this tradition. In international development, for example, the Government work closely with organisations such as Christian Aid, World Vision and the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development. In children’s services, the Children’s Society used to be called the Church of England Children’s Society, and Action for Children, formerly National Children’s Home, has its roots in Methodism. Before there were state schools, there were faith schools, often attached to monasteries or cathedrals. The Education Act 1944 formalised this position, sometimes known as the dual system, whereby faith schools could be a full part of the state school system while retaining their religious character. There is a distinction between what are known as voluntary aided schools and voluntary controlled schools, and different degrees therefore of independence for those two. VA tends to be mostly associated with the Catholic Church, but there are lots of Anglican VA schools, and VA schools…
- Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question of a school having a faith ethos or being run by a Church is entirely separate from whether, in its admissions policy, it may discriminate between children on the basis of their parents' professed faith? Those are two distinct issues.
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the question of schools having a faith element, being run by a Church or by any faith group, is different from the question of whether, in their admissions policy, a school may discriminate against one child and in favour of another based on the professed faith of their parents? Does he agree that those are two separate issues?
- They are different but related. And — on average — faith schools slightly outperform non-faith schools, which is where the suspicion that it can only be because of an unfair intake comes from. By the way, there is no such thing as 100% faith selection in practice: it only bites when a school is oversubscribed, and any state-funded school with spare places must admit all-comers.
They are different but related issues. For the avoidance of any confusion, when we talk about schools being “run” by a Church, there was a time when clerics ran schools, but things are not really done in that way today. Some of the top-performing schools in the country are denominational schools with faith-based admissions. There are some very poor-performing faith schools and some brilliantly performing non-faith schools, and obviously it varies from year to year, but on average, faith schools tend to slightly outperform the average. The hon. Lady can correct me if I am wrong, but there is a feeling that this is where she and others get the idea that that is possible only if there was some unfairness in the intake of children the schools accept.
- It is not a *belief* that the profile of faith schools differs from their peers — it is the data. Comparing apples with apples, on free school meal rates and parental wealth, the numbers show that. Does he recognise that?
The right hon. Gentleman is being very generous with his time. It is not a belief that the profile of faith schools is different from other schools: it is true. If we look at the rates of free school meals and the wealth profile of parents and compare them with peers—if we compare apples with apples—the data shows that. Does he recognise that?
- I can trade statistics — anybody who suggests that Catholic school intakes skew wealthy does not know much about the demographics of the Catholic population in England, shaped as it is by successive waves of immigration. On the 50% cap: it was a sensible safeguard for the free school route, where any group could come forward. But it has never applied to VA schools, and those schools remain legally possible. Under a small capital fund opened in 2018-19, five different faiths applied for new VA schools to serve communities — particularly eastern European Catholic communities — where demand existed but provision did not. I will not support Amendment 48.
As I said earlier, there are all manner of datasets. I do not have my full Excel complement with me today, but I can trade with the hon. Lady and counter what she said with other statistics. In particular, anybody who suggests that the intake of a Catholic school is higher up the socioeconomic scale than the average does not know a whole lot about the demographics of the Catholic population in this country. We have a remarkable amount of ethnic diversity because of immigration patterns. By the way, there is no such thing as 100% faith selection; that happens only if a school is oversubscribed. If a state-funded school has spare places, at the end of the day, it is obliged to let anybody come along. However, if a school is oversubscribed and we lose the faith admissions criterion, the nature of the school will change. That goes to the heart of the hon. Lady’s question. There is something intrinsic to having a faith designation and a faith ethos in a school. Some people—I accept that the hon. Lady is not one of them—believe that such things contribute to what happens to those children, their education and their wellbeing, and they are reflected even in that small average premium in terms of results. Back in the days of the free schools and before them, as the hon. Lady mentioned, a 50% cap was put in place, known commonly as the 50% faith cap. That reflected the fact that with free schools there was a different situation, because now any group could come along and say, “We want to open a school.” It seemed a sensible safeguard to have a cap. However, all the way through it has remained legally possible—not a lot of people know this—to open a voluntary aided school. That proposition was tested in law in 2012, after the coalition Government came into office, with the St Richard Reynolds Catholic college in the constituency of the hon. Member for Twickenham. Once a VA school is opened, it can convert to an academy.
Amendment 48 does not seek to prevent faith schools from opening — it simply applies the existing cap to every type of new school, whatever its legal form. For me the main driver is social cohesion and ethnic diversity: in some areas, other faiths would set up schools that, without the cap, would end up with very little racial diversity, which is worrying for community relations. I say that as someone with a strong personal faith who sends my own children to a Church of England school. As Nigel Genders told us in oral evidence, state-funded schools should be for the whole community.I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman’s excellent speech. Amendment 48 does not seek to prevent faith schools from opening. It would simply apply the cap to any type of school—academy, maintained, voluntary aided or whatever. For me, the main driver for that safeguard is social cohesion and ethnic diversity. We have talked a lot about Church schools, but there are other faiths that seek to set up schools in certain areas of the country where, without the cap in place, they would not get much racial diversity. That is worrying for community cohesion. I say that as somebody who has a strong personal faith. I send both my children to a Church of England school—mainly because it is in front of my house, so they can leave the house 30 seconds before the gate shuts—but I feel uncomfortable with its level of faith selection. As we heard in oral evidence from Nigel Genders, it is important that state-funded schools be for the whole community and be open to everyone.
- I am not arguing for abolishing faith schools. I am simply saying that the 50% faith cap should apply to *any* new school that opens, regardless of type — the same safeguard that has applied under the coalition and since. It is about social cohesion and serving the whole community.
I think the right hon. Gentleman thinks I am arguing that we should abolish faith schools. I have not made that argument. He is saying that this is not how we have done things in this country, but since the coalition and before, we have had a 50% faith cap. All the amendment seeks is clarity in legislation that that 50% faith cap will remain in place for any new school that opens. I realise that it was the Liberal Democrats who forced the Conservatives to put the cap in place for free schools, which is probably why the right hon. Gentleman will oppose me. For me, it is about social cohesion and about honouring the fact that we should serve all our communities. I am not opposing the establishment of new faith schools; I am just saying that they should have a cap of 50% on faith-based admissions.
The block on new local authority-run schools could only have been introduced for ideological reasons — and removing it is hugely welcome. The data speaks for itself: there is now a statistically negligible difference between the proportion of good-and-outstanding academies and good-and-outstanding maintained schools, so the argument that one model is inherently worse no longer holds. In my constituency we put together an excellent bid for a new free special school — rated excellent throughout the process — only to have that option closed to us, pushing the responsibility back onto cash-strapped local authorities to expand existing provision. Clause 51 restores parity of esteem between models and opens up genuine competition for the best proposal, rather than defaulting to academies.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Christopher. I rise to support clause 51 and to question the nature of the amendments. The block on new local authority-run schools could only have been introduced for ideological reasons. Its removal is hugely welcome. If one model were of substantially better quality than the other, there might be a basis for such a block, but the facts speak for themselves: that is not the case. There is now a statistically negligible difference between the number of good and outstanding academies and the number of good and outstanding schools of other models, including local authority schools. It is plain for all to see that they are as good as each other, so the argument no longer holds water that one model is worse than the other and that legislation is therefore needed to block it. I fully relate to the experience mentioned by the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, where the only option is a free school application that then gets shut down. In my Southampton constituency, we put forward an excellent bid—all the advice throughout the process deemed it excellent—for a free special school. We are all painfully aware of the need for extra places for those with special educational needs and disabilities. With a free school application as our only option, we dutifully engaged, only to have that option shut down to us in the end. That pushes the responsibility back on existing schools to expand, entirely at the cost of already cash-strapped local authorities. The clause is a sensible restoration of parity of esteem between different school models. On the rationale for objections and scrutiny, I have to say that am left a little confused by the Opposition’s positions and arguments. They question the local authority’s being both the regulator and provider of schools. If they do not support that, what is their solution? Is it for the local authority to become redundant and have no role in planning, so we therefore have c…
On Amendment 85: local authorities will be required to seek proposals from all types of proposer — including academy trusts — so I can absolutely reassure the hon. Member that proposals for new academies will be sought and welcomed. We are simply ending the *presumption* that all new schools must be academies, so that the best proposal for local children wins. On Amendment 48: I recognise the concern about inclusivity, but it is for each school's admission authority to decide whether to adopt faith-based oversubscription criteria — and in practice there is real variation, with many faith schools not using faith criteria at all. Schools with a religious character remain subject to the same obligations to promote fundamental British values and to teach a broad and balanced curriculum. On the specific question about cross-authority admissions numbers: we will set out the detail in regulations, but our intention is that local authorities will be able to object to the published admission number of a school in *another* local authority.I thank the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston for tabling amendment 85. When a local authority thinks that a new school is needed in its area, it will be required to seek proposals for a new school from proposers other than local authorities. That includes academy trusts, as well as other bodies such as charitable foundations and faith bodies. Local authorities will be required to seek proposals for different types of school, including academy schools, foundation schools and voluntary schools. I appreciate that the hon. Member may be looking for assurance that proposals for new academies will be sought and welcomed as part of the new invitation process. I can absolutely reassure him on that. We are simply ending the presumption that all new schools should be academies and allowing proposals for all types of school, so that the proposal that best meets the needs of children and families in an area is taken forward. All types of schools have an important role to play in driving the high standards that we want to see in every school, so that all children are supported to achieve and thrive. I thank the hon. Member for Twickenham for tabling amendment 48, which seeks to restrict the proportion of places that can be allocated on the basis of faith to a maximum of 50% for all new schools established following a local authority invitation to establish one. In practice, it would only make a difference to a new voluntary aided foundation and a voluntary controlled school with a faith designation. I recognise that the hon. Member is seeking to ensure that new schools are inclusive and that all children have access to a good education. That is very much a mission that we share. The Government support the ability of schools designated with a religious character to set faith-based oversubscription criteria. This can support parents who wish to have their children educated in line with their religious beliefs. However, it is for a school’s admission authority to decid…
- Clause 52 requires local authorities to publish proposals when they want to open a new maintained nursery school, and sets out when proposals for other new schools can be published outside the invitation process in Clause 51. Clause 53 brings pupil referral units within the same statutory arrangements, putting them on an equal footing with alternative provision academies. Clause 54 introduces Schedule 2, which ensures proposals are considered equally, without the current preference for academy proposals; where a local authority itself puts forward a proposal, the Secretary of State decides to ensure an unbiased outcome. Clause 55 provides transitional arrangements so that proposals already in train under the current rules are determined under those rules.
Clause 52 requires local authorities to publish proposals when they want to open a new maintained nursery school. It also sets out the circumstances in which local authorities or other proposers can publish proposals for other new schools outside of the invitation process described in clause 51. Local authorities will be able to publish proposals for a new community, community special, foundation, or foundation special school to replace one or more maintained schools, or to establish a new pupil referral unit to replace one or more pupil referral units. They will not be required to follow the invitation process unless they choose to, or they have already launched an invitation process that they could publish the proposals in response to. It also allows other proposers to propose the establishment of a new foundation, voluntary or foundation special school at any time, unless there is a live invitation process that the proposals could be submitted in response to. Local authorities and other proposers will not need to obtain the Secretary of State’s consent before publishing proposals, as they do now in certain circumstances. The clause also enables regulations to set out the action that local authorities must take to publicise proposals that have been published under these arrangements. These provisions give local authorities the flexibility to decide which route to establishing a new school is most appropriate when they are replacing an existing maintained school or schools. They also preserve the ability of other proposers to put forward proposals to the local authority for a new school, for example to meet the need for a particular type of place. Clause 53 applies a restriction on opening new schools under section 28 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to pupil referral units, so that pupil referral units can be established only by following the same statutory procedures, introduced by clauses 51 and 52 of the Bill, that apply to other types of school mainta…
- Clause 56 is the consequential amendments power. It is prudent to have a failsafe for legislative consequences that become apparent during or after a Bill's passage; the power is limited to changes *consequential* on the Bill's provisions, regulations amending primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure, and this is standard practice — similar powers appear in the Renters' Rights Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and the Health and Care Act 2022. Clause 57 is the financial provision; Clause 58 sets territorial extent; Clause 59 deals with commencement — general provisions from Royal Assent, most others by Secretary of State order; Clause 60 gives the short title 'Children's Wellbeing and Schools Act 2025'. On New Clause 10, the Government do not condone violence against children and take safeguarding extremely seriously; but we will wait for Wales to publish its impact assessment — due by end of 2025 — before legislating to remove the reasonable punishment defence. That is not inaction: this Bill already introduces many concrete safeguarding measures, including children-not-in-school registers, improved information-sharing, and multi-agency child protection teams.
Clause 56 contains a provision for the Secretary of State to make changes consequential on the provisions of the Bill to other legislation, as well as to existing primary legislation. It has been drafted to allow the Secretary of State to make consequential changes to other Acts preceding this Bill or those that are passing before Parliament in this Session. It is always possible that necessary changes to legislation may be identified after a Bill’s passage. Given the breadth of legal areas that the Bill covers, it is prudent to provide a failsafe should anything have been missed. Without one, there is a risk to the coherence of the legislative landscape that the Bill creates. The clause sets out that regulations making changes to primary regulation are subject to the affirmative procedure, and that those making changes to other legislation are subject to the negative procedure. Clause 57 contains a financial provision necessary to the provisions of the Bill that require expenditure. It sets out the expectation that Parliament will fund any expenditure and any future increase in it incurred by the Secretary of State in relation to this Bill. Clause 58 sets out the territorial extent of the provisions in the Bill. It is a standard clause for all legislation. As the Committee is aware, Westminster does not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the relevant devolved Governments. However, there are no provisions of this Bill that engage that process. Clause 59 sets out when the provisions in the Bill come into force. The general provisions on extent, commencement and the short title come into force on the day of Royal Assent. Subsection (2) sets out the provisions that will come into force two months after the Bill is passed. All the provisions will come into force on a day or days to be appointed by the Secretary of State through regulations. Those regulations may appoint different days for different purposes or different areas. The Secretary of…
- Clause 56 is a significant Henry VIII power, and I expect their Lordships to scrutinise it carefully. Giving Ministers power to amend primary legislation without returning to the House is never a small thing. It is particularly concerning given the open questions around the constant unique identifier and the NHS number database of children — decisions with major implications for privacy that could potentially fall within this power's scope. Defend Digital Me has flagged 30 specific concerns on the information provisions. Democratic accountability requires Parliament to notice and object after the fact, which is a weak safeguard.
I rise to speak only to clause 56, which is a big old Henry VIII power. I am sure that their lordships will want to explore it in detail. In the interests of time, I have not tabled an amendment to it at this stage and I will not go into lots of detail, but it is always important to note such things. It is no small thing to give the Government the power to amend primary legislation without coming back to the House. Of course, there are certain limits to what they could do by means of such measures, but it is a big deal. I place it on the record that the Minister will be well aware of some of the concerns about the clause that are coming to us from civil society. I am sure that she will have seen the comments from Jen Persson, the director of Defend Digital Me, on the information powers in the Bill. When we make laws in this way, it relies on someone noticing and raising an objection to Parliament to get any kind of democratic debate, and we can only stop such things in hindsight. As the Minister will know, Defend Digital Me has put forward 30 different areas and proposals that it has concerns about, particularly on the information side. On previous clauses, we debated the constant unique identifier and eventually using the NHS number for that, and other things that we have objected to, such as the requirement to give information about how much time a home-schooled child is spending with both parents. I will not reconsider all the debates that we have already had, but all those important decisions will potentially be in the scope of this Henry VIII power. I am keen to move on to the new clauses, so I will not go any further now, but I am sure that the Government will receive lots of probing questions on this point as the Bill moves to the other place.
- The Clause 56 power is limited and narrow — it can only be used to make consequential amendments flowing from provisions that Parliament will have already voted on. Regulations amending primary legislation are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. This is entirely in line with standard practice.
On clause 56, it is always possible that necessary changes to legislation might be identified through a Bill’s passage. As I said, it is therefore prudent to have a failsafe should anything have been missed. This power is limited and narrow: it can be used only to make amendments that are consequential on the Bill’s provisions, which will be voted on, and it is in line with usual practice. Regulations made under the power that amend or repeal any provision in primary legislation will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We have carefully considered the power, and we believe that it is entirely justified in this case. It is needed to ensure that we are able to deal with the legislative consequences that may flow naturally from the main provisions and ensure that other legislation continues to work properly following the passage of the Bill.
- We discussed the NHS number and the children's database several sittings ago, and there are still wide-open questions about scope — is this all children? How will it be used? Those questions touch many pieces of legislation. Given the controversies this country has had over ID cards and privacy, will the Minister write to the Committee setting out specifically what issues around those provisions might fall within the consequential amendments power? We need to know we have not inadvertently agreed to something we did not realise.
I have never been so warmly welcomed. [Laughter.] We talked a few sittings ago about the NHS number and the database of children, and there are a lot of wide-open questions about the scope of that. Is that all children? How will it be used? In turn, that could potentially affect a lot of other pieces of legislation. Bearing in mind the massive controversies we have had in this country in the past over ID cards, privacy and so on, will the Minister write to the Committee setting out specifically what some of the issues in relation to that might be? We do not want find ourselves having agreed to do something that we did not realise we were agreeing to do.
- That power is well-precedented — it appears in the Renters' Rights Bill, the Employment Rights Bill and Acts of the previous Administration including the Health and Care Act 2022. On New Clause 10: we are open-minded, but we do not intend to bring forward legislation imminently. New Zealand removed the defence in 2007 and saw 13 investigations and one prosecution in the following two years — it is important to understand how each country's context shapes outcomes. We will look very carefully at Wales's impact assessment before proceeding.
I think I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that that is not the case. The inclusion of similar powers is common and well-precedented in legislation. Powers to make consequential amendments can be found in several other Government Bills, such as the Renters’ Rights Bill and the Employment Rights Bill, as well as in Acts presented under the previous Administration, such as the Health and Care Act 2022, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is fully supportive of. I turn to new clause 10 and the contributions from hon. Members. I absolutely appreciate the case that is being made, which is why we are open-minded on the issue, but we do not intend to bring forward legislation imminently. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire spoke about the successful implementation in Wales. I am interested in how she knows that to be the case, because we are awaiting the publication of the impact assessment. We are very keen that legislation is evidence-based and has its intended effect. That is why we are waiting for the evidence that will come from Wales. The hon. Member mentioned a number of international examples. I have an example from New Zealand, which removed the reasonable punishment defence in 2007. Data suggests that 13 cases were investigated between 2007 and 2009, with one prosecution. It is important that we look at how this measure works within the context of each country that it is applying it. Obviously, we will look very closely at the implementation in Wales—the impact it has and the difference it makes—and will also then look at how that will apply specifically within an England context before proceeding with legislation.
Is the Minister really saying that whether to protect children from violence depends on counting prosecutions? This is a question of fundamental equality — the same legal protection adults already enjoy. And the measure of success is not how many prosecutions follow; it is a culture shift that recognises there is no justification for violence against children, backed by the family support needed for lasting change.There are two points that I would want to make. Is the Minister really arguing that whether we should protect children from violence depends on whether an impact assessment shows that there are a certain number of prosecutions or whatever? Is this not about the fundamental equality of protecting children in the same way that we give adults legal protection against assault? Secondly, the impact of giving that equal protection is surely not something that should be measured in the sense of how many prosecutions there have been over how many years. This is not about getting more prosecutions; it is about shifting the culture as a whole to recognise that there is no justification for violence against children—none.
- Keeping children safe is this Government's greatest priority — the question is how best to achieve it. An example from the Republic of Ireland, which removed the defence in 2015, shows that cultural change is complex: a poll in 2020 still found relatively high acceptance of slapping children. We are putting tangible, deliverable measures into practice now — this Bill already significantly improves safeguarding. Abusive parents are caught by the existing legislative framework; the 'reasonable punishment' defence has never been a defence to serious harm or death.
Keeping children safe could not be more important, and it could not be a greater priority for this Government. The question is how that is best achieved. That is the evidence that we are awaiting from Wales—to see how impactful the change made there has been. I will give another example, from the Republic of Ireland, which removed the reasonable punishment defence in 2015. There is limited data on the impact, but a poll in 2020 suggested that a relatively high acceptance of slapping children remained. Absolute clarity and an evidence-based approach is what the Government seek to take. That is why, within this legislation, we have absolutely prioritised real, tangible measures, which we can put into practice without delay, to significantly improve the chances of any harm coming to children being minimised. I listed those measures in my opening response on this clause. As the law stands, quite frankly, any suggestion that reasonable punishment could be used as a defence to serious harm to a child, or indeed death, as has been asserted, is completely wrong and frankly absurd.
- Nobody is arguing that abolishing the defence alone stops all violence against children — but it is an essential component, and professionals in the sector say the current legal ambiguity actively hinders their ability to intervene with at-risk families. Is there any universe in which *keeping* the defence of reasonable punishment is better for children than removing it? Surely equal protection will move things in the right direction, alongside all the family support needed.
The Minister cited an example from Ireland. I do not think anybody is arguing that abolition of the defence of reasonable punishment will, in and of itself, stop all violence against children, but we are arguing that it is an important component of what must be done to stop violence against children. The Children’s Commissioner and all the other people I have cited have made very powerful arguments to that effect. Professionals working in the sector have talked about how the ambiguity of the current law is actively unhelpful to them in offering support and intervention to families in which this might be an issue. Going back to the point about needing to wait for an impact assessment, does the Minister think there is any universe in which it could be more beneficial for children to keep the defence of reasonable punishment than it would be to abolish it? Surely it is logical to expect that ensuring equal protection for children will move things in a better direction, alongside all the family support required to make a sustainable long-term change.
- We will await the Wales impact assessment and act accordingly. Parenting is genuinely complex — the vast majority of parents want to do right by their children, and we are investing in parenting support through the Families First programme. We are open-minded on this issue and will take a careful, evidence-based approach before making such a significant legislative change.
As I have said, we need to wait and look at the evidence before making such a significant legislative change. The protection of children is critical. The Bill takes significant steps to improve safeguarding. The context in England is different from Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the changes would need to be considered very carefully in the light of the evidence and how they would tangibly impact the protection of children in England. We are awaiting the impact assessment and will take action accordingly. Abusive parents are caught under the existing legislative framework. The challenge in this area is that parenting is complex. I can attest that it is one of the most difficult jobs anyone can do. Parents know their children, and they want to get it right with their children. As the hon. Member for North Herefordshire acknowledges, parenting programmes and support is what we are focused on. We are putting in place support for parents to be good parents, because that is what the vast majority want to be. When that is not their intent, there are laws in place to prevent harm from coming to children. I absolutely accept the arguments being put forward today. We have an open mind and will look at the evidence and take a very careful approach to this. I commend the clause to the Committee. Question put and agreed to. Clause 56 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 57 and 58 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 59 Commencement
- The Liberal Democrats support New Clause 10 and giving children equal protection in law. Why should adults and children have different legal protection from assault? The Children's Commissioner and the NSPCC have been unambiguous on this. This is not about interfering with parents' discipline choices — it is about protecting the most vulnerable. The Children's Commissioner has called for it particularly in the wake of the Sara Sharif case, and New Clause 10 has cross-party support. I hope the Minister's open-minded words mean this will be acted on before the end of this Parliament.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 10, adding the Liberal Democrats’ support for putting equal protection into law for children. I do not understand why we would have a different level of protection for adults versus children. They are the most vulnerable children in our society. The Children’s Commissioner and the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have been very clear that children should be protected. This is not seeking to interfere with parents in terms of how they discipline their children; it is about protecting our most vulnerable. The Children’s Commissioner has strongly called for this, particularly in the wake of the tragic case of Sara Sharif. I really hope, when the Minister says that the Government will actively look at this during this Parliament, that that is the case. I suspect that there are Members in all parts of the House—I note that the new clause has cross-party support—who will continue to press her on this matter, because it is a basic issue of children’s rights and equal protection in law.
- Giving children equal protection from assault cannot happen soon enough. There is overwhelming and worldwide evidence — from 65 countries — on the benefits of removing the reasonable punishment defence, and decades of research showing physical punishment is not only ineffective but actively harmful: increased behavioural problems, mental health risks, and greater likelihood of more serious assault. Professionals in safeguarding tell us the current ambiguity actively hinders their work with families at risk. The inequality is stark: if an adult hits an adult, it is assault; if an adult hits a child, the defence is available. Scotland legislated in 2020; Wales has done the same. This Bill is about children's wellbeing — grasp this opportunity.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I rise to speak to demonstrate the cross-party support that has already been referred to for new clause 10 and consequential amendment 11 in the name of the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Jess Asato), and I would like to start by congratulating and thanking her for her important work on this issue over many years. Giving children equal protection from assault cannot happen soon enough. Although we tabled amendment 11 as a probing amendment, I cannot urge the Government strongly enough to grasp this opportunity, in this Bill on children’s wellbeing, to take this forward and put it into law. Taking the essential step of giving children equal protection from assault has very widespread support not only among the general public, but among all sorts of organisations that advocate and work on behalf of children, including the NSPCC, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the Parenting and Family Research Alliance and the Children’s Commissioner, to name just a few. We heard from the Children’s Commissioner herself in oral and written evidence just how strongly she feels about this matter. I share her view that it is totally unacceptable that in 2025, children have less protection from assault under English law than adults do. The existence of the “reasonable punishment” defence perpetuates ambiguity in the law. It leaves children exposed to potential harm and undermines efforts to safeguard their wellbeing. New clause 10 would remove this outdated defence and provide clarity, consistency, and equal protection for children under the law. The Minister talked about wanting to wait until we have evidence from Wales, and of course, as she acknowledges, it is only in England and Northern Ireland that children do not have this protection. Scotland and Wales have already passed legislation on this matter—indeed, Scotland did before Wales, in 2020. The Minister mentioned waiting for evidence to come from W…
- Care leavers aged 18 to 20 becoming homeless has risen by 54% in the past five years — a shocking figure. New Clause 6 ensures that where a council is the corporate parent, no care leaver can be found to have become *intentionally* homeless. That is essential: corporate parenting means treating these young people as any parent would, and young care leavers are disproportionately and wrongly found intentionally homeless — for things like moving away to university or not keeping in touch with a personal adviser.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. As I am sure colleagues will be all too aware, homelessness levels are far too high. Homelessness can have a devastating impact on those affected. The Government are determined to address that and deliver long-term solutions to get us back on track to ending homelessness. Care leavers are particularly vulnerable to becoming homeless, with the number of care leavers aged 18 to 20 becoming homeless rising by a shocking 54% in the past five years. Young care leavers are also more likely to be found to have become intentionally homeless by local authorities, meaning that local authorities are not required to secure them settled accommodation. This Government take corporate parenting seriously, and recognise the key role that local authorities play in providing care, stability and support to care leavers—like any parent would. We are introducing the new clause to ensure that, where a council is their corporate parent, no care leaver can be found to have become intentionally homeless.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 5WC.] (Correction) This is an essential step to ensure that those care leavers are not held back by their start in life and get the support they need to build a secure and successful future. I therefore recommend that the new clause be added to the Bill.
- Will the Minister confirm that New Clause 6 will also cover the small group of young people leaving the youth justice system and returning to their home area?
Will the Minister confirm that the new clause will also apply to the small group of young people who are leaving the young justice system and returning to their home area?
- The measure covers children classed under the Children Act 1989 as relevant or former relevant children — broadly, those aged 16–24 who were looked after for at least 13 weeks since their 14th birthday, including at least one day after turning 18. In most cases that will include young people leaving the criminal justice system, since they will face similar challenges in establishing a secure adult life.
I thank hon. Members for their contributions, and absolutely agree on the importance of this measure and the difference it will make to children and young people as they move into the sometimes challenging transition to adulthood, having experienced care and on leaving care. In response to the question from the right hon. Member for East Hampshire, the amendment will impact children classed under the Children Act 1989 as relevant children or former relevant children who present for homelessness assistance. That would cover young people aged 16 to 24 who have been looked after by a local authority for a period of at least 13 weeks, or periods that amount to 13 weeks, since their 14th birthday, at least one day of which must have been since they attained the age of 18.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 6WC.] (Correction) The answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question would, therefore, be subject to those parameters, but I imagine that in most cases it would apply to young people leaving the criminal justice system. He is right to raise that as a concern. Indeed, the purpose of the measure is to disapply the intentional homelessness test for care leavers who are within that scope. Care leavers who have left the youth justice system would quite rightly be included, given that they will experience similar challenges to other care leavers in establishing themselves in a secure adult life.
The data is striking: care leavers aged 18–20 becoming homeless have increased 54% in just two years. How will this measure strengthen joint working between children's and housing departments — and can the Minister say more about the specific impacts of homelessness on care-experienced people?I was struck by recent data that shows that care leavers are particularly vulnerable to homelessness, as we have heard in this Bill Committee. Latest Government data show that the numbers of care leavers aged between 18 and 20 becoming homeless have increased by 54% over the past two years. Can the Minister outline how this very welcome measure will enhance and strengthen joint working between the children’s and housing departments, and outline a bit more some of the impacts of homelessness on care-experienced people and care leavers?
- In 2023–24, up to 410 households including a care leaver were found to be intentionally homeless. Disapplying that test will give local authorities far greater scope and ability to support these young people into a secure adult life — which clearly starts with a secure home.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is worth looking at the data: in 2023-24 there were up to 410 households that included a care leaver who was found to be intentionally homeless. We appreciate that disapplying the intentional homelessness test means that local authorities will have much greater scope and ability to work with these young people and to support them into a more secure adult life. That clearly involves having a secure home, so I hope that hon. Members are willing to support this clause. Question put and agreed to. New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 57 Pay and conditions of Academy teachers “Schedule (Pay and conditions of Academy teachers: amendments to the Education Act 2002) amends Part 8 of the Education Act 2002 (teachers’ pay and conditions etc) in relation to the pay and conditions of teachers at Academies (other than 16 to 19 Academies). Part 8 of the Education Act 2002”.—(Vicky Foxcroft.) This clause replaces Clause 45 and introduces the schedule to be inserted by NS1. Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill. New Clause 1 Implementation of the recommendations of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse “(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, take steps to implement each of the recommendations made in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. (2) The Secretary of State must, after a period of six months has elapsed from the passing of this Act and at 12 monthly intervals thereafter, publish a report detailing the steps taken by the Government to implement each of the recommendations. (3) A report published under subsection (2) must include— (a) actions taken to meet, action or implement each of the recommendations made in the final report of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse; (b) details of any further action required to implement each of the recommendations or planned to supplement…
Become and the YMCA both strongly welcome New Clause 6. Become's FOI to all tier-1 local authorities last year found real variation in whether authorities disapplied intentionality assessments for care leavers — including cases of young people found intentionally homeless for moving to university, not maintaining contact with advisers, or turning down inappropriate accommodation. That contradicts corporate parenting duties and compounds care-experienced young people's already disproportionate risk of homelessness.Become, the charity for children in care and young care leavers, strongly welcomes the new clause, as does the YMCA, which supports around 1,000 care leavers a year with housing. In its written evidence to the Committee, Become pointed to a freedom of information request that it submitted to all tier 1 local authorities in England last year, which showed real variation in whether they disapplied homelessness intentionality assessments for care leavers. Become provided examples of hearing from care-experienced young people who have been assessed as intentionally homeless for moving away to university, not keeping in touch with their personal advisers or turning down offers of accommodation that was not appropriate for them. That contradicts local authorities’ duties as corporate parents, and contributes to the disproportionate risk of homelessness that care-experienced young people are subject to. I thank Become for its evidence, which provides powerful insight and an argument in support of the new clause. I hugely welcome it being added to the Bill.
- New Clause 6 builds on years of work by charities and campaigners, including by colleagues such as Josh MacAlister. This will be a genuine, positive material change in the lives of care-experienced young people, and I am excited to report it back to my constituency.
Briefly, I warmly welcome the new clause. Colleagues will be aware of my interest in this area. From years of working alongside those who fall foul of laws and principles on paper that they never see, but that make a material difference to their lives and outcomes, I know that this will be a positive change. It builds on years of work, including not only the work of various charities already mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North, but the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister) and no doubt countless others, and will be warmly welcomed. I am excited to be able to report to those in my constituency on the work of this Government in making sure that care leavers have better outcomes. I look forward to working with Ministers in the future to work out how we can get from this point to other areas that will make a positive material difference to their lives.
- New Clause 1 seeks to create a legislative commitment — with clear timescales and regular reporting to Parliament — on implementing Professor Alexis Jay's 20 IICSA recommendations. Barely any progress has been made, and I was pretty outraged that Conservative colleagues tried to weaponise the issue on Second Reading to kill the whole Bill. This is a constructive approach. Since I tabled it, the Government have made further announcements including Baroness Casey's rapid review, so I am happy to withdraw on the basis that my party will continue to hold the Government's feet to the fire. These girls have been abused — and the abuse is ongoing.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I rise to speak to the new clause, tabled in my name and in the name of a number of my colleagues. Briefly, it goes without saying that, on all sides of the House, we are horrified by child sex abuse and what Professor Alexis Jay uncovered through her seven-year-long investigation. We are also horrified that so little progress has been made to date in implementing the 20 recommendations she set out. The new clause therefore seeks to create a legislative commitment, with clear timescales and regular reporting to Parliament, on progress in implementing that report. It is an attempt to approach the issue constructively. I was disappointed, to put it mildly—in fact, pretty outraged—that Conservative colleagues sought to weaponise the issue on Second Reading to try to kill off the entire Bill. I hope that this is a much more constructive approach. However, I recognise that shortly after my tabling the new clause following Second Reading, the Government made further announcements, including that Baroness Casey will undertake a rapid review and that they will be setting out a timetable. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the new clause, but my party and I will continue to hold the Government’s feet to the fire. These girls have been abused, and I am in no doubt that the abuse is ongoing. That needs to be tackled, and justice needs to be served, so I hope that the Government will implement the recommendations and set out a clear timescale.
- A constituent came to see me in January — she had given evidence to the IICSA inquiry and was devastated by the lack of progress. We owe it to everyone who came forward, trusting that their evidence would drive change, to move faster. Can the Minister set out a clear timetable for implementing the recommendations?
I rise to speak in support of the new clause, while recognising what the hon. Lady who tabled it has just said. In doing so, I am particularly mindful of a constituent of mine who came to see me in January to tell me that she had given evidence to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. Frustrated does not even cover how she felt—she was incredibly upset at the lack of progress on implementation under the previous Government, and she was frustrated to find that progress now is still not fast enough. We have a huge responsibility to all who suffer child sexual abuse, and in particular to those who have been brave enough to come forward and give evidence, trusting that that evidence would help to make changes. I hope that the Minister can clarify timetables for implementation.
- The Government are absolutely focused on delivering justice for victims. The Home Secretary has already committed to a mandatory reporting duty, making grooming an aggravating factor in sentencing, and a new police performance framework. Before Easter, the Government will lay out a clear timetable for the 20 IICSA recommendations. Baroness Casey will lead a rapid audit on grooming gangs; the independent child sexual abuse review panel's remit will be extended to cover all cases since 2013; and £5 million has been provided for local authority inquiries. A cross-Government ministerial group, supported by a new victims and survivors panel, is working through the remaining recommendations.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are absolutely focused on delivering justice and change for the victims on this horrific crime. On 6 January, the Home Secretary outlined in Parliament commitments to introduce a mandatory duty for those engaging with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, to toughen up sentencing by making grooming an aggravating factor and to introduce a new performance framework for policing. On 16 January, the Home Secretary made a further statement to the House that, before Easter, the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations from the final IICSA report. Four of those were for the Home Office, including on disclosure and barring, and work on those is already under way. As the Home Secretary stated, a cross-Government ministerial group is considering and working through the remaining recommendations. That group will be supported by a new victims and survivors panel. The Government will also implement all the remaining recommendations in IICSA’s separate, stand-alone report on grooming gangs, from February 2022. As part of that, we will update Department for Education guidance. Other measures that the Government are taking forward include the appointment of Baroness Louise Casey to lead a rapid audit of existing evidence on grooming gangs, which will support a better understanding of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation across the country, and to make recommendations on the further work that is needed. The Government will extend the remit of the independent child sexual abuse review panel, so that it covers not just historical cases before 2013, but all cases since, so that any victim of abuse will have the right to seek an independent review without having to go back to the local institutions that decided not to proceed with their case. We will also provide stronger national backing for local inquiries, by supplying £5 million of funding to help local authorities set…
- New Clause 2 would extend free school lunches from year 2 to year 6 — covering all primary school children. It has the support of 43 MPs across the House and more than 250 civil society leaders. The need is acute: University of Bristol research shows one in five schools runs a food bank — more than the total number of community food banks run by organisations like the Trussell Trust. The NEU found that 80% of teachers have bought food for hungry children out of their own pockets. During the pandemic, Marcus Rashford pointed out that 2.5 million children didn't know where their next meal was coming from. That shameful legacy of child poverty continues. The evidence for universal free school meals is overwhelming — on nutrition, educational attainment, attendance and behaviour.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 2 would extend the provision of free school lunches to all primary school children, from year 2 up to year 6. It was tabled in the in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher)—I thank him for his work on this—and has been supported by 43 hon. Members across the House. In addition to this high level of support from MPs, the No Child Left Behind campaign, which underpins new clause 2, is backed by more than 250 civil society leaders, from unions to charities, from medical bodies to faith leaders, and from mayors to councils. This widespread backing is unsurprising, because the case for universal free school meals is, in fact, overwhelming. Let us start with the need, which is acute. I am sure colleagues remember how during the pandemic Marcus Rashford ignited the campaign for free school meals, pointing out that we could fill 27 Wembley stadiums with the 2.5 million children who were struggling to know where their next meal was coming from—a shocking indictment. That shameful legacy of child poverty from the last Government continues, with hunger in schools still endemic. University of Bristol research shows that one in five schools runs a food bank. That figure, I am told, is higher than the total number of community food banks being operated outside schools by organisations such as the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network. The National Education Union explained that its members see the struggles of children in poverty every day. Some 80% of teachers asked said that they had provided food for hungry children out of their own pockets—is that not extraordinary? One of those teachers said: “So many of our children arrive tired and hungry. I find the issue with food so awful. I stock my school kitchen every week with fruit, cereal, milk, biscuits...the number of children who pop in to see me and then ask for food has grown over the last two years. It is heart-breaking.” It truly is. N…
- We strongly support the ambition here — it was the Liberal Democrats in Government who introduced universal infant free school meals, and our long-term aim is to extend them to all primary children. I recognise the cash-constrained environment, which is why I will be speaking later to New Clause 31 on widening eligibility, but the intent of New Clause 2 is absolutely right.
Briefly, I very much support the ambition in this new clause. After all, it was the Liberal Democrats, in Government, who introduced universal infant free school meals; we have always had the long-term ambition of extending that to all primary school children. However, I recognise the cash-constrained environment that the Government are operating in. That is why, when we get to it, I will be speaking to new clause 31, which looks at increasing the eligibility for children to receive free school meals. However, I want to put on the record that we do support the intent of this provision in the long term, for all the reasons the hon. Lady has just laid out.
Universal infant free school meals already reach around 1.3 million children, and 2.1 million disadvantaged pupils receive benefits-based meals — 24.6% of all pupils in state-funded schools. We spend over £1.5 billion annually on free school meal programmes. We have inherited rising child poverty and widening attainment gaps. The Government take this extremely seriously — that is why we have set up a ministerial child poverty taskforce — but we are not accepting New Clause 2 at this stage.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I turn to new clause 2, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), on the important topic of expanding eligibility for free school meals, specifically universal provision, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has moved today. Under the current programmes, all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 in England’s state-funded schools are entitled to universal infant free school meals. That benefits around 1.3 million children, ensuring that they receive a nutritious lunch-time meal. In addition, 2.1 million disadvantaged pupils—24.6% of all pupils in state-funded schools—are eligible to receive benefits-based free school meals. Another 90,000 16 to 18-year-old students in further education are entitled to receive free school meals on the basis of low income. Those meals provide much-needed nutrition for pupils and can boost school attendance, improve behaviour and set children up for success by ensuring that they can concentrate and learn in the classroom and get the most out of their education. In total, we spend over £1.5 billion on delivering free school meal programmes. Eligibility for benefits-based free school meals drives the allocation of billions of additional pounds of disadvantage funding. The free school meal support that the Government provide is more important than ever, because we have inherited a trend of rising child poverty and widening attainment gaps between children eligible for free school meals and their peers.
- The value of school meals goes far beyond nutrition and academic achievement — it builds community, social skills and the ability to interact with others. Sitting down together to eat is a vital part of children's social development.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the value of school meals is much more than the nutrition that they give, and even more than children’s educational achievement when they are properly fed? It is also about building a set of behaviours, a sense of community and an ability to interact with others. It is absolutely vital that when children sit down for a school meal or a packed lunch, that is part of their social development.
- Absolutely right — when I visit schools I see children learning to eat together, use a knife and fork, build community. The number of children in poverty has grown by over 700,000 since 2010, with more than 4 million now in low-income families. We are committed to tackling that through our child poverty strategy.
I know my hon. Friend is a real champion of children and young people in her constituency, and she is absolutely right. When I visit schools across the country, I see the benefits of school meals. Not only do children sit and eat together, but they learn how to use a knife and fork. She is absolutely right to point out the wider benefits that the free school meal programme brings. The number of children in poverty has increased by over 700,000 since 2010, with more than 4 million now growing up in low-income families. We are committed to delivering on our ambitious strategy to reduce child poverty by tackling its root causes and giving every child the best start in life.
- I have visited four schools in the last seven days as early adopters of breakfast clubs. Teachers tell me there is light at the end of the tunnel. But rolling out free breakfast clubs and free school lunches simultaneously risks putting too great a strain on schools — the breakfast club infrastructure needs to be got right first.
So eager am I to find out which schools in my area are the early adopters that I am currently on a little coach trip around all of them. I have visited four in the last seven days, and I have spoken to people about their experiences and aspirations under this Labour Government. It is brilliant to speak to teachers who now feel that there is light at the end of the tunnel—teachers who have held on for so long in recent years, hoping things will get better. With a change of Government, they now have a change of education policy, and the provision of free breakfast clubs is a true indicator of that. Teachers say that they want to go further and faster with the provision of breakfast clubs, but they also realise that they need to take time to get it right. Although I obviously welcome the intent of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, I believe that moving forward with free breakfast clubs and free school lunches could put too great a strain on schools at this point, because I recognise that the roll-out of free breakfast clubs is restricted to early adopters in the first phase.
- There are important lessons from the London Mayor's roll-out of universal free school meals on getting the infrastructure right — we are looking closely at that evaluation, including from Impact on Urban Health.
I know my hon. Friend is a real champion of children and young people in his constituency, and of the Government’s ambitions on breakfast clubs. I hope that he will work closely with schools in his constituency as we roll out breakfast clubs in his patch and, indeed, across the country. He makes a number of really important points about the vital need to get the infrastructure in place for free school meals. We know that that is some of the learning from the work that the London Mayor has been doing.
- Two questions. First, the disadvantage gap: I have the key stage 2 and key stage 4 disadvantage gap index — what specific definition is the Minister using when he says the Government inherited a *widening* gap? Second, on free school meal eligibility: the previous Government extended it through universal credit transitional protections, so the incoming Government inherited one in three children eligible, up from one in six under Labour. Notwithstanding New Clause 2, what will this Government do to ensure that the same number of children who now receive free school meals can continue to do so?
I want to ask the Minister about two things. First, he talks about the disadvantage gap widening at the present time. Entirely coincidentally, I happen to have the numbers on key stage 2 and key stage 4. Of course, there are different ways that we can measure these things. I am looking at what is known as the “disadvantage gap index” for key stage 2 and key stage 4. I would be interested to know what definition he is using, from which he concludes that the Government inherited a widening disadvantage gap. The second thing I want to ask him about is free school meal eligibility. We all absolutely recognise the value of free school meals. The Minister mentioned some of the extensions of eligibility that happened under the previous Government. The one that he did not mention was universal credit transitional protection. Even though unemployment came down from 8% to 4.5%, and the proportion of people in work but on low pay halved as a result of the increase to the national living wage, eligibility for free school meals went up, so the incoming Government have inherited one in three children being able to get a free school meal, as opposed to one in six when Labour were last in government. Notwithstanding this new clause, which the Government will not accept, what will they do to make sure that the same number of children as now can continue to get a free school meal?
- I am referring to a persistently high disadvantage gap — and child poverty is a stain on our society that we are determined to end. The child poverty taskforce, jointly led by the Secretaries of State for Education and Work and Pensions, will publish a strategy in spring 2025. On transitional protections: we will provide clarity to schools ahead of the March 2025 end date, and the taskforce is considering free school meal provision among all measures to drive down child poverty rates.
I am referring to a persistently high disadvantage gap. I will point out that this Government take child poverty extremely seriously. It is a stain on our society. That is why I am so proud that this new Labour Government have introduced a child poverty taskforce led jointly by the Secretary of State for Education and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. We will end child poverty. It is a stain on our society, and we are committed to making sure that we do everything we can and are publishing a strategy in due course. With regard to transitional protections, I say to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire that my Department recognises the vital role played by free school meals and encourages all eligible families that need support to take up that entitlement. To make it as easy as possible to receive free school meals, we provide an eligibility checking service. On transitional protections specifically, we will provide clarity to schools on protections ahead of the current March 2025 end date. The new ministerial taskforce has been set up to develop a child poverty strategy, which will be published in spring 2025. The taskforce will consider a range of policies, including the provision of free school meals, in assessing what will have the biggest impact on driving down rates of child poverty. I appreciate the continued engagement of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud on the issue of expanding free school meal provision to more pupils and on school food more broadly. He has raised concerns about obesity in particular and will be aware that the school food standards, which other Members have mentioned, apply to all food and drink served on school premises and, crucially, restrict foods high in fat, salt and sugar. We are taking important measures through the Bill to ensure that the standards apply consistently across all state-funded schools. We are also clear that breakfast clubs are in scope of the standards. We recognise how important this issue is and…
- When the Minister evaluates the free school meals policy as a mechanism for tackling child poverty, will he assess the *full range* of benefits — not just poverty impact, but health outcomes, wider economic benefits and so on?
I welcome what I believe I heard: that the Minister maintains a relatively open mind on this question and will continue to look into it. He said that the effectiveness of the free school meal policy would be evaluated in the light of whether it was an effective mechanism for tackling child poverty. I want to re-emphasise that my arguments are not just about impact on child poverty. In considering expansion of free school meals, will he evaluate their effectiveness in terms of the full range of their potential benefits—not just the impact on child poverty, but health benefits, wider economic benefits and so on?
- As with all programmes, we will keep this under review and learn from what evidence tells us — including from the London Mayor's scheme and from Impact on Urban Health's evaluation. The Government's ambition is also to source half of all food in public sector settings from local producers or higher-environmental-standard growers, and we will support schools to drive up sustainable food-sourcing practices.
As with all Government programmes, we will keep our approach under review and learn from what the evidence and data tell us. I can assure the hon. Lady that I met with a number of stakeholders, including the London Mayor, to understand the impact that the roll-out in London is having on not only household incomes, but children’s outcomes. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire asked about specific points on the school food standards. It is important that children eat nutritious food at school. The school food standards define which foods and drinks must be provided and which are restricted. They apply to food and drink provided to pupils on school premises and during the extended school day up to 6 pm. As with all Government programmes, we will keep our approach to school food under continued review. The hon. Member for North Herefordshire asked about the sustainable sourcing of food. This Government’s ambition is to source half of all food served in public sector settings from local producers or from growers certified to meet higher environmental standards where possible. We have committed to supporting schools to drive up their sustainable practices on food. Schools can voluntarily follow the Government’s buying standards, which include advice around sustainable sourcing. We mentioned earlier the Mayor of London’s roll-out of universal free school meals, and we are looking closely at evaluations and new evidence emerging from the scheme, including Impact on Urban Health’s recent evaluation. I have met with those stakeholders and heard of their experience of participating in the programme. Finally, on whether the free school meals offer is more generous from devolved Administrations than in England, education, including free school meals policy, is a devolved matter. In England, we spend over £1.5 billion annually delivering free school meals to almost 3.5 million pupils across primary, secondary and further education phases. As with all Government programmes, we…
- New Clause 3 would require local authorities to publish their performance against statutory EHCP deadlines — monthly, on their websites, in accessible form — including explanations for missed deadlines and plans for improvement. Across England in 2023, only 50.3% of EHCPs were issued within the 20-week statutory deadline; in Essex the figure was 0.9%. This is a first step: transparency as the precondition for accountability. The data is already collected, so there should be no additional resource burden — and it would reduce FOI requests and ease the constant anxiety of parents chasing their child's plan.
I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time. I am moving new clause 3 on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman). The Children and Families Act 2014 sets out timeframes for local authorities to decide whether to do an education, health and care plan needs assessment, and then for the resulting education, health and care plan to be issued. Local authorities have six weeks from application to decide whether to carry out an EHCNA, and a total of 20 weeks from application to issue an EHCP. Across England in 2023, however, only 50.3% of EHCPs were issued within that statutory 20-week deadline. Some places perform much worse than that—in Essex, only 0.9% were issued within the 20-week deadline. New clause 3 is about reporting that. Transparency is a first key step in accountability, so publishing local authorities’ performance in relation to those statutory deadlines is the aim of the amendment as that first step. It is essentially a free change because local authorities already have the information gathered, so there should not be any additional resources needed. It could in fact help, because it would cut down on freedom of information requests, for example, which are a burden on councils. It will also cut down on the level of communication required with concerned parents constantly contacting to ask when their child is going to receive their EHCP. Also included within new clause 3, local authorities will have the opportunity to explain any reasons and lay out their plans for improving performance. That kind of transparency helps direct resources well, and I think it is a good, sensible step,
- We already publish annual data on each local authority's timeliness against the 20-week EHCP deadline, and authorities with performance concerns face additional DfE monitoring and, where needed, specialist SEND adviser support or direct intervention. We are working on whole-system reform — driving mainstream inclusion, reducing waiting times for assessments, and collaborating across DfE, DHSC, MHCLG and DWP. We do not believe that increasing published data *alone* would drive meaningful improvement, so we ask that New Clause 3 not be pressed to a vote, though the conversation on SEND outcomes will absolutely continue.
I totally agree it is vital there is publicly available data regarding local authority performance on EHCPs. That is why we publish annual data on each local authority’s timeliness in meeting their 20-week deadline. Local authorities identified as having issues with EHCP timeliness are subject to additional monitoring by the Department for Education, which works with the specific local authority. Where there are concerns about the local authority’s capacity to make the required improvements, we have secured specialist special educational needs and disabilities adviser support to help identify barriers to EHCP timeliness and put in place practical plans for recovery. Furthermore, when Ofsted and Care Quality Commission area SEND inspections indicate there are significant concerns with local authority performance, the Department intervenes directly. That might mean issuing an improvement notice or statutory direction or appointing a commissioner, deployment of which is considered on a case-by-case basis. We are clear that the SEND system requires reform. We are considering options to drive improvements, including on the timeliness of support and local authority performance. We do not believe increasing the amount of published data and reporting on EHCP timeliness alone would lead to meaningful improvements in performance. We are working closely with experts on reforms. We recently appointed a strategic adviser for SEND who will play a key role in convening and engaging with the sector, including leaders, practitioners, children and families, as we consider the next steps for future reform of SEND. In response to the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, I absolutely respect the intentions of his amendment and the desire to see much greater timeliness and support for children with SEND and their families. We are working incredibly hard—this is a priority within the Department for Education—to get much better outcomes. We do not believe that this amendment wi…
- This is not a silver bullet — but where councils are missing targets by such a margin (Essex at 0.9%!), and where NHS partners are sometimes failing to work constructively with local authorities to deliver EHCPs on time, transparency and accountability to parents really matters. As the Minister works on reform, please seriously consider this provision.
I appreciate what the Minister is saying. I agree with her that this is not a silver bullet. This will not suddenly improve the system. This is about transparency and accountability where, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire pointed out, there are some councils that are missing the targets by such a long chalk, and is about setting out the reasons for doing so. We know in some areas that frankly NHS partners are not working constructively with local authorities to help deliver EHCPs on time. As the Minister looks at reforming the system—and I know from my discussions with her and the Secretary of State that the Government are working hard on this—could I urge that they seriously consider this provision. It is about transparency and accountability for parents, which I think is really important.
- We share the ambition completely, and we take away the intentions behind New Clause 3. This is a cross-departmental challenge and we are looking at whole-system reform — mainstream inclusion, reduced assessment waiting times, and much better outcomes for children with SEND. We would appreciate the clause not being pressed, but the conversation will continue.
I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for the way in which he presented this clause. We share the ambition for children with special educational needs and disabilities to get much better service, from their local authority and on their education journey. We recognise there are significant challenges for those who seek to deliver that being able to do so, which is why we are looking at reform in a whole-system way. We are looking to drive mainstream inclusion within our school system and to reduce the waiting times for assessments, which we know is led by the Department of Health and Social Care. This is a cross-departmental effort involving the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, the Department of Health and Social Care, the Department for Work and Pensions, and clearly the Department for Education has a key role in achieving a much better outcome for children with special educational needs. We absolutely take away the intentions of this amendment, but would appreciate it not being pressed to a vote as part of the Bill. The conversation about special educational needs and improving the outcomes for children will, however, without doubt continue.