Report stage, 3rd reading in the Commons
Third reading of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill, covering free breakfast clubs, school uniform costs, the home-education register, academy freedoms, and the national curriculum — ending with a vote to pass the Bill.
CMThis Bill is for children — the clue is in the name. It is for their safety, their education and their future. This Government are on a mission to break down barriers to opportunity for each and every child, and the Bill is a significant step on that path.I start by thanking hon. Members in all parts of the House for their valuable contribution to the debate so far. The Bill is for children—the clue is in the name. It is for their safety, their education and their future that we bring it forward. This Government are on a mission to break down barriers to opportunity for each and every child, and the Bill is a significant step on that path. I welcome the debate that the Bill has sparked. After a decade in which education was left on the sidelines, Labour is once again bringing it to the fore, and to the centre of national life—the place it always occupies under a Labour Government. Education is at the heart of how we ensure opportunities for the next generation.
Would the Minister join me in acknowledging that schools in Walsall borough — a very diverse borough with real deprivation — outperformed national figures for the first time last year, with 91% of Walsall schools rated good or better? That improvement happened under a Conservative Government and a Conservative-led council.On the Minister’s point about the last 10, 12 or even 14 years, would she join me in acknowledging that the schools in Walsall borough—a very diverse borough, with areas of real deprivation—outperformed national figures for the first time at the end of last year, with 91% of Walsall schools being graded good or better? That figure has steadily increased under not just a Conservative Government, but a fantastic Conservative-led council.
- I celebrate schools that are doing well, but when the previous Government left office, England's schools were getting worse — standards in reading, maths and science were down, roofs were crumbling, and a generation of children were absent from school. We are determined to tackle those challenges head-on.
I will always share in the celebration of schools that are doing well, and the right hon. Lady is absolutely right to celebrate the schools in her area. I do question, however, the shameless pride we sometimes see in the record of her Government; when they left office, England’s schools were getting worse, standards in reading, maths and science were down, roofs were crumbling, children were struggling, and a generation of children were absent from school. We are determined to tackle those challenges head-on. The education that we provide for our children is not just for their future, but for all of our futures. It shapes society today and the society that we want for tomorrow.
Will the Minister at least acknowledge that schools in England are better today than they were in 2010? Picking a tiny subset of time to make out that schools are deprived is not a fair assessment.It is good of the Minister, for whom I have a great deal of respect, to give way. As I know her to be an honest person, will she at least share with the House the fact that schools in England are better today than they were in 2010? Picking some tiny subset of time to make out that schools are deprived is not a fair assessment. Schools are demonstrably better in England today than they were in 2010. Please, Minister, at least acknowledge that.
- One in three children starting school is not school ready. More than a third leave primary school without a firm foundation in reading, writing and maths. The disadvantage gap is widening. We are not satisfied with leaving some of our children without the start in life that they deserve.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words and his assumption of my honesty. The fact is that one in three children starting school is not school ready. More than a third of children leave primary school without a firm foundation in reading, writing and maths. The disadvantage gap is widening. I will come on to what we want to achieve as a Government, but we are not satisfied, as Conservative Members appear to be, with leaving some of our children without the start in life that they deserve. We want the best for all our children, and that is what our changes will achieve.
- Every child and family must have certainty that they can access a good local school. We want a rich and broad curriculum, delivered by expertly trained teachers with a pay and conditions offer that attracts and retains the staff that our children need.
I have given way to the right hon. Member. I will do so again later. It is essential that every child and family has certainty that they can access a good local school—a school that will set high expectations and standards for all our children, enabling them to achieve and thrive. We are bringing forward legislation to achieve our reforms, but there are reforms that we can make for which no legislation is required. We are designing a school system that supports and challenges all schools to deliver for our children. We want a rich and broad curriculum, delivered by expertly trained teachers, who have a good pay and conditions offer that attracts and retains the staff that our children need.
Will the Minister look at new clause 30, calling on the Government to review the effectiveness of outdoor education? We have a mental ill health pandemic in this country. Building young people’s resilience through outdoor education is good for that — and when they go back to the classroom they are more willing to learn. Is this not a moment to invest in outdoor education in every part of the country?In that spirit, will the Minister look at my new clause 30, which calls on the Government to review the effectiveness and value of outdoor education and learning for young people in both primary and secondary schools? We have a mental ill health pandemic in this country and are trying to put that right. Will she acknowledge that building young people’s resilience through outdoor education is good not just for dealing with that, but for building young people’s ability to rely on others and themselves? That helps them in situations in which they are not comfortable, and when they go back to the classroom, they are more willing to learn. Does she see this as a moment in which to invest in outdoor education, in every part of the country?
- He is right to want that for all our children. We want to create a floor, but no ceiling, for what schools can offer — enabling healthy competition and innovation beyond a core set of frameworks — so schools have the freedom to deliver the enrichment programmes he rightly advocates.
The hon. Gentleman is incredibly committed to that cause—understandably so, as he comes from a part of the country that boasts incredible outdoor scenery, and activities that many of us, I am sure, have taken part in. He is right to want that for all our children. That forms part of the changes that we are introducing today, which will unlock opportunity for all children up and down the country. We want to create a floor, but no ceiling, for what schools can offer, and to enable healthy competition and innovation beyond a core set of frameworks and standards, so that we can improve all schools, and give them the freedom and ability to deliver the enrichment programme for which he so rightly advocates. We want high and rising standards for all children.
- Trust chief executive officers agree there is nothing to fear from our sensible, pragmatic measures. Academy conversions are progressing faster under Labour Ministers than at any time since the shadow Minister joined this House. The 91 Government amendments extend all the ‘children not in school’ provisions to Wales — Labour Governments in both Cardiff and London delivering our shared ambition. Amendment 140 ensures that children attending school full-time in Scotland are not wrongly captured on English local authority registers. Amendments 141 to 148 make clear that home-educated children who are not at risk and are receiving suitable education will not be placed in school against their parents’ preference. Amendments 166 and 167 empower Ofsted to share information — including from whistleblowers — with other inspectorates where doing so protects children’s welfare.
Try as the Opposition might to make their straw man argument, this Labour Government will demand high and rising standards for all our children. Recent polls of the profession show that, despite all the scaremongering, trust chief executive officers agree that there is nothing to fear from our sensible, pragmatic and common-sense measures, which will drive standards up in every school. Academies have grown from a Government-backed insurgency in our schools, and now make up well over 50% of our school system. That is not about to change. The shadow Minister will be pleased to hear that conversions to academy status are progressing faster under Labour Ministers than at any time since she joined this House, but it is right to look forward and consider how we will build a system fit for the next 20 years. The Bill is a step on that path. It recognises, in the words of one multi-academy trust leader, that parents deserve clarity and confidence in the standards that their children’s school upholds, and that is what this Government will secure. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan), led yesterday’s debate on part 1 of the Bill. I will use my opening remarks to speak to the Government’s amendments to parts 2 and 3. Members commented yesterday on the number of amendments, but the number of substantive amendments is small, and I shall focus on them today. Many Members have a great interest in city technology colleges and city colleges for the technology of the arts, and they have raised with me the excellent practice supported by those institutions. The Government amendments ensure that these schools can be named on school admission orders, and make it clear that families with children attending those schools will benefit from other measures in the Bill, such as those tackling the cost of school uniform. Just as we are committed to working with all our schools, so too are this Government determined to work…
- Will the Minister reassure home-educating parents that the requirements in Clause 26 will not be overly onerous? There is a requirement to record the time each parent spends educating their child — is that 24 hours a day, 365 days a year? Can she give us reassurance that the measure will be proportionate?
Will the Minister reassure home-educating parents that the requirements in the Bill will not be overly onerous? For instance, there is a requirement to record the time that each parent spends educating their child. Is that 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year? How exactly would that work? Can she give us some reassurance that this measure can be made manageable and sensible, and will not be disproportionate?
- Parents who are doing the right thing — home-educating their children and providing a suitable education in a safe environment — have nothing to be concerned about. These measures are intended to ensure that no child falls through the cracks.
Parents who are doing the right thing—home-educating their children and providing a suitable education in a safe environment—have nothing to be concerned about in relation to these measures. They are intended to ensure that no child falls through the cracks, and that is what we are delivering.
- Would someone have to record every hour and place in the week? Home education happens in all sorts of places. She has an opportunity at the Dispatch Box to say she will bring forward regulations so parents don’t have to write down every time they stop at an ice cream shop for some education about the vanilla flavour.
I am sure that the Minister intends to ensure that this does not happen, but would someone have to record all the hours and places in a week? I do not know how much the Minister knows about home education, but children are educated in all sorts of places. She has an opportunity at the Dispatch Box to say that she will come forward with regulations to ensure that they do not have to write down every time that they stop at an ice cream shop for some education about the vanilla flavour.
- We have all seen the succession of tragedies when children fall between the cracks — the changes in this Bill are this Government’s determination to bring that era of state failure to a close. Amendments 90 and 151 give local authorities confidence that they can share data from the ‘children not in school’ registers with the agencies listed in section 11 of the Children Act 2004 and with Ofsted, in line with well-established practices — essential to keep children safe.
The amendments that I am addressing relate particularly to information sharing, which clearly the right hon. Gentleman has concerns about. Members on both sides of the House will be all too aware of the succession of tragedies that we have seen when children have fallen between the cracks in services that should be there to support them. The changes in the Bill are a reflection of this Government’s determination to bring that era of state failure to a close. New clause 17 relates to the measures on opening new schools. Part 2 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which the Bill is amending, includes a number of relevant duties and powers where personal data might be processed—for example, where a proposal for a new school includes details of the relevant experience of the individual proposers. It makes clear that these powers and duties to give or publish information do not give anyone the right to give or publish personal data in a way that would breach data protection legislation. It applies a data protection override to the whole of part 2 and schedule 2 to the 2006 Act to cover all the information-related powers and duties in relation to opening, closing and altering schools. Amendments 166 and 167 will ensure that restrictions on the sharing of data, obligations of confidence and other restrictions do not prevent the sharing of information where it is done to protect the welfare of children at registered independent educational institutions or in accommodation provided by schools or colleges. They empower Ofsted to disclose information to other inspectorates of independent educational institutions or of accommodation in schools or colleges, to enable their inspections and ensure high-quality services for our children. We anticipate that information to be shared for those purposes may include that which is given in confidence—for instance, concerns shared with Ofsted by whistleblowers. However, it is essential that information sharing that would help to pro…
The Bill sets out no clear plan or vision. It is silent on discipline and behaviour — one of the biggest issues. It takes a wrecking ball to 40 years of cross-party reform. England has risen up the international league tables while Labour-run Wales has slumped down, because England followed the formula of freedom plus accountability. The Bill attacks both: stripping academies of curriculum and recruitment freedoms enjoyed by 82% of secondary schools, and ending the automatic transfer of failing schools to new management. The Secretary of State has axed advanced maths, physics, Latin and computing programmes — yet found £90 million for advertising.The Bill does not set out any kind of clear plan or vision for our schools. It does not address the big challenges that need addressing. It is silent on discipline and behaviour—one of the biggest issues. It comes after the Government scrapped simple Ofsted judgments and will be followed by moves to dumb down the curriculum and lower standards further. The Secretary of State has no positive vision. She has axed programmes for advanced maths, physics, Latin and computing because she thinks that they are elitist. She has axed behaviour hubs with no replacement, even though schools that went through the scheme were twice as likely to be good or outstanding. Yet, somehow, she is able to find £90 million for advertising. The Bill is the worst of all. We have tabled numerous amendments to it. It takes a wrecking ball to 40 years of cross-party reform of England’s schools. Those reforms worked. There is much more to do, but England has risen up the international league tables even as Labour-run Wales has slumped down. Under successive Governments of all colours, England’s schools have been improved by the magic formula of freedom plus accountability. The Bill attacks both parts of that formula. On the one hand, it strips academy schools of freedoms over recruitment and curriculum and reimposes incredible levels of micromanagement, taking away academy freedoms now enjoyed by 82% of secondary schools. On the other hand, it strikes at accountability and parental choice, ending the automatic transfer of failing schools to new management, reversing the reforms of the late 1980s, which allowed good schools to expand without permission from their local authority—a reform that ushered in parental choice. Let me unpack this. First, the Bill takes away academy schools’ freedoms over the curriculum. We have tabled amendments to that. As Sir Dan Moynihan, who leads the incredibly successful Harris schools, explained: “We have taken over failing schools in very disadvantaged places in…
- The removal of curriculum freedoms closes the door on schools like Michaela and Petchey that tailored their curricula specifically to reach disadvantaged pupils. I hope Government Members reflect on this and seek a change of policy — if not in this House, then at least in the House of Lords.
Like me, my hon. Friend finds these proposals tragic because of the removal of the curriculum freedoms that have allowed schools such as Michaela and Petchey and others all over the country to tailor their curriculum specifically to reach disadvantaged pupils so that they can engage better with their learning and have an achievement that previously they did not have. That door is being closed. I hope that Government Members reflect on this and seek a change of policy, if not in this House, then at least in the House of Lords.
- Ministers have never explained what problem the national curriculum compulsion is trying to solve, but the unions like it, so into the Bill it goes. The Government’s own impact assessment admits that mandatory QTS will mean some schools struggle to find teachers they need — yet it won’t even apply to 14-to-19 academies, university technical colleges, studio schools and FE colleges. Clause 56 lets the Secretary of State direct academy schools to do pretty much anything. The Confederation of School Trusts says the power is too broad; Ministers voted down our amendment to restrict it. And under Clause 46, academies will need Secretary of State permission for any change to their buildings — including building a bike shed. Meanwhile Clause 58 ends the automatic conversion of failing schools: the Children’s Commissioner warns that children will spend longer in failing schools as a result.
My right hon. Friend is completely correct. Some Government Members have reflected on this: the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Dame Siobhain McDonagh) said that the proposal to make it compulsory for academies to teach the national curriculum was of particular concern to her, and she is right. Ministers have never explained what they are trying to solve with this change, but the unions like it, so into the Bill it goes. We have tabled further amendments on qualified teacher status. The Government are getting rid of academy freedoms over recruitment and the freedom to employ non-QTS teachers. Sir Martyn Oliver from Ofsted gave us a good example of how these freedoms are used. He said: “In the past, I have brought in professional sportspeople to teach alongside PE teachers, and they have run sessions. Because I was in Wakefield, it was rugby league: I had rugby league professionals working with about a quarter of the schools in Wakefield at one point..”––[Official Report, Children's Wellbeing and Schools Public Bill Committee, 21 January 2025; c. 49, Q108.] Brilliant. The Government’s own impact assessment to the Bill says of this change: “some schools may struggle to find the teachers that they need.” Rebecca Leek from the Suffolk Association of Headteachers gave a good example of how this freedom is currently used. She said that she urgently needed an early years lead, and was able to take on someone who had run an outstanding nursery, even though they did not have QTS and nor did they plan to get it. But in future, she would not be able to do that. Former headteacher David Thomas told us in Committee that this freedom allows them to recruit people who may be at the end of their career, who have a huge amount of experience that they want to give back to the community. They do not want to go through the bureaucracy, and if we put up barriers, they will not end up in the state sector. Ministers have not produced a single shred of evidence that teachers without QT…
- The success from 2010 to 2024 was only possible because Labour visionaries drove the academies programme forward in the first place. Now this Government are disowning it — isn’t that a tragic irony?
Does my hon. Friend, like me, reflect on the irony that the success from 2010 to 2024, which we on the Conservative Benches would naturally celebrate, was only possible because of the Labour visionaries who drove the academies programme forward, made changes, developed the argument, rolled the pitch and allowed us to lift our schools to much higher levels of performance and our children from deprived backgrounds to much better results. Labour Members were the creators of that, and now this Government are disowning it.
- It is the professionals — people who have given their lives to education — who are criticising this Bill. Gareth Stevens of Inspiration Trust warns that the council could halve places at his outstanding school: “the idea that we could have the rug pulled out from under us…It will mean fewer places at high performing good or outstanding schools.”
It is tragic. It is not us criticising the Bill; it is the professionals—the people who have given their lives to education. I will give another example. Gareth Stevens, leader of Inspiration Trust, another high-performing trust, gives the example of his local council wanting to halve places at an outstanding school to prop up other schools. He says that “the idea that we could have the rug pulled out from under us and the number of places in our high performing school cut is the most worrying thing…It will mean fewer places at high performing good or outstanding schools”.
The Education Select Committee had very limited time to scrutinise this Bill — just one evidence session on Part 2. I wholeheartedly support restoring coherence to admissions and place planning. On uniforms, no child should be shut out of the classroom because their family cannot afford a £100 blazer — monitoring compliance will matter. I welcome the home-education register: children going missing from the education radar and sometimes coming to harm, as in the case of Sara Sharif, is deeply concerning. On free school meals: around one in ten eligible children don’t claim them because the administrative process is too complex. New clause 1 would ensure between 200,000 and 250,000 additional families receive the meals their children are entitled to. Amendment 2 would ensure children with SEND can access breakfast clubs on an equal footing with peers. New clause 2 would require regular reviews of the Act’s impact — good practice for a Bill of this size passed very quickly.I rise to speak in support of new clause 1, new clause 2 and amendment 2, all in my name. The amount of time afforded to the Education Select Committee to undertake detailed scrutiny of the Bill was very limited. We were able to undertake just one evidence session on part 2, and we deliberately sought not to duplicate the evidence taken by the Public Bill Committee. We therefore took limited evidence on the changes to the role of local authorities in school place planning and admissions. I speak, however, as an MP whose constituents have suffered the consequences of the fragmentation of admissions policies and place planning over the past 14 years. That has resulted in school places sometimes being delivered in areas where they were not needed, undermining other local schools; our councils struggling to ensure the delivery of school places that were needed, particularly for children with special educational needs and disabilities; and local places at a very popular local school being allocated not to local families but to children across a wide area of south-east London. I therefore wholeheartedly support the attempts in the Bill to restore coherence to admissions and place planning through the role of local authorities. I also support the measures to reduce the cost of school uniform for families by limiting the number of branded items, which are a really significant cost of living pressure for families. However, I encourage the Government to keep a careful watch on how this requirement is being complied with, particularly in relation to the cost of blazers, having heard of one appalling example in my constituency of a very vulnerable child who had been allocated a place at a good school but was told she could not attend until she was wearing a blazer, the cost of which was over £100—way beyond the means of her family. I know the Minister will agree that no child should be shut out of the classroom because their family cannot afford the right clothes for them to we…
After a decade of Conservative neglect, with schools crumbling, specialist teachers scarce, SEND provision in crisis and persistent absence widespread — why have the Government chosen to tinker with academies and governance as their priority? New clause 7 would make free school meals available to children from households earning under £20,000 and auto-enrol them. New clause 54 would require the Government to find out how many eligible children aren’t claiming — the last proper study dates back to 2013. In Liberal Democrat-led Durham, auto-enrolment brought 2,500 additional children a hot lunch and £3 million more in pupil premium to their schools. On uniforms, amendment 1 proposes a monetary cap instead of an item cap — updated annually by secondary legislation — which would actually drive down costs. New clause 9 would place a dedicated mental health practitioner in every school. New clause 10 would establish a national body for SEND. Until the Government settle on a swift and robust accountability regime, removing the automatic academy order for failing schools is very risky — amendments 223 and 225 would at least provide parliamentary oversight.A number of measures in part 2 of this Bill are to be welcomed. However, after a decade of neglect by the Conservatives, I want to ask Ministers this: when our schools are crumbling, when we cannot find specialist teachers, when special needs provision is in crisis and when we have a huge persistent absence problem, why have the Government chosen to tinker with academies and governance arrangements as their priority education policy? The one strong message coming through from education leaders, including those who have no ideological axe to grind, is that the way that the Government have gone about part 2 of the Bill shows a lack of coherent vision for the school system, with no White Paper and no consultation with those on the frontline or in leadership positions across the sector. I turn to some of the new clauses tabled in my name. With all the pressures on family finances, new clause 7 would ensure that free school meals were available to children from households earning less than £20,000 per year and automatically enrol eligible children into this provision. Liberal Democrats have long believed that this is an effective, targeted intervention that would help children in poverty at both primary and secondary school to concentrate, to learn and to thrive. New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to find out exactly how many children were eligible for, but not claiming, free school meals or were not registered for pupil premium funding. It beggars belief that, as spelled out in recent answers to parliamentary questions that I have submitted, the Government are flying blind on this issue, with the last proper study of uptake dating back to 2013. New clause 54 would require regular reviews of free school meal uptake. As we discussed at length this morning in Westminster Hall, and as the Chair of the Education Committee pointed out, an estimated 230,000 eligible children are missing out on a free school meal. Where local authorities auto-enrol children into…
Would she have been as surprised as I was by the answer to my written parliamentary question, which revealed that if a school specifies that a badge be sewn on to an otherwise generic blazer, that badge would count as an item of branded uniform?The hon. Member mentions answers to written parliamentary questions. Would she have been as surprised as I was to see the answer to a written PQ of mine saying that if a school specified that a badge be sewed on to an otherwise generic blazer, that badge would count as an item of branded uniform?
- The Government say a cost cap would be too complex, but they have done no analysis of regional uniform price variation. Under a cost cap, schools could simply sew logos onto cheap supermarket items — giving parents real choice. Amendment 1 would put pounds and pennies back in parents’ pockets. New clause 10 on a national SEND body is the burning priority for school leaders — high-needs spending has tripled since 2015 yet educational outcomes for SEND pupils are stagnant. New clause 9 for a dedicated mental health practitioner in every school is urgently needed — mental health support teams do great work but are spread far too thinly. Clause 26 requires parents to supply so much information that even the Association of Directors of Children’s Services was circumspect — new clause 48 calls for a review of its impact on home educators within six months.
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Committee, the Minister said that a cost cap, rather than an item cap, would be too complex and risked reducing choice for parents by increasing schools’ reliance on specific suppliers. She also suggested that there would be regional variation in uniform pricing. Again, having tabled a PQ, it is clear that there has been no analysis by the Government to show regional variation in uniform prices. I was going to suggest that schools that wanted more branding on items under a cost cap could sew or stick logos on plain jumpers and other items bought cheaply in supermarkets. I believe the Government want parents to have choice. My suggestion would give parents the choice of going to a well-known supermarket brand and then applying the school logo. I am shocked to hear about the answer to the PQ tabled by the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and I will have a look at it afterwards. Our amendment 1 would put pounds and pennies back into parents’ pockets and avoid top-down meddling from Whitehall on school uniform policy. Also on school uniforms, new clause 12 concerns a simple matter of fairness. The zero rate of VAT applies only on clothing for children up to the age of 14, and parents have to pay VAT on school uniforms for children who are larger or over the age of 14. In Committee, the Minister cited the cost to the Exchequer of making the change, but if the Government’s stated aim is to bring down uniform prices, I humbly suggest that she presses the Chancellor to look at this amendment, because it is a simple change to make. Turning to special needs, as I said at the outset, this is probably the biggest burning priority for the school leaders I speak to up and down the country. It certainly is across this House, given the number of Members involved in SEND debates. New clause 10 in my name would establish a new dedicated national body for SEND, which would fund high-needs provision and ensure that children with p…
Does she agree that home educators must not feel stigmatised by state representatives having the right to enter private property and make an assessment of home education that is completely contrary to the reality experienced by the child in their own home?On home education, does the hon. Lady agree that not only is it a case of getting the balance right between privacy and the right to educate at home, but it is important that home educators do not feel stigmatised by the ability of the state to enter private property under less-than-forthcoming means that enable it subsequently to make an assessment of home education that is completely contrary to the reality experienced by the child in their own home?
- Those concerns came through overwhelmingly in the Bill Committee’s written evidence from home-educating families. Many home educators feel forced into it because the school system has failed their children — often children with SEND. The legislation, though seeking to safeguard those who go missing from education, risks over-policing the vast majority who are doing a great job.
The hon. Gentleman expresses concerns that those of us on the Bill Committee found in the written evidence we received from families who home educate. My inbox certainly has such correspondence from home educators in my constituency. There is a real fear that this legislation, which is seeking to safeguard children who go missing from education, will over-police home educators, most of whom are doing a great job. In fact, a lot of them home educate their children not because they want to but because they feel forced to. That comes back to what I was saying about the crisis in our special needs system, and the fact that so much special needs provision just does not meet the needs of children, so parents give up work to be able to home educate their child. By virtue of their children’s needs, parents tend to be much more flexible in how they home educate. The very onerous reporting mechanisms will interfere with the flexibility that parents need to provide to their children. In conclusion, I say respectfully to Ministers that part 2 of the Bill is a bit of a muddle, because the second half of it was bolted on to some well-trailed measures that largely have cross-party support. I hope Ministers have heard the strength of concern from school leaders about the unintended consequences of some of their measures. If they are serious about helping families with the cost pressures they face, I trust they will listen to cross-party calls on free school meals, whether that is introducing auto-enrolment or raising the eligibility threshold, as well as to the more effective approach to managing the cost of school uniforms that I have set out.
School children have for too long borne the brunt of academisation. As a teacher on the border and a national NASUWT executive member, I have seen at first hand how the Academies Act 2010 has let teachers be exploited: Ark school teachers work 1,657 hours a year, more than maintained school colleagues, for £7 less per hour. The Bill extends the statutory pay and conditions framework to all academy teachers, restores local authority power to direct admissions for hard-to-place pupils, and ends the academy presumption so local authorities can better serve SEND students.It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate and express my support for the Bill. For far too long, school children have borne the brunt of academisation. Fortunately, the Labour Government in Wales rejected this model, but, having been a teacher on the border for most of my working life and a national executive member of the NASUWT, I have seen at first hand the negative impact of academies becoming the default model, while local authorities have been sidelined. Since the introduction of the Academies Act 2010, the freedom for academies and free schools to set their own pay, terms and conditions has led to the exploitation of teachers. For example, teachers at Ark schools are expected to work 1,657 hours—more annually than a maintained school teacher, while earning £7 less per hour. The lack of national consistency not only allows these schools to undervalue and overwork staff but undermines basic rights such as pension schemes, maternity and sick pay. Our Bill will tackle those disparities by extending the statutory pay and conditions framework to all teachers in academies, ensuring greater consistency and fairness between academies and maintained schools. There is also the issue of admission policies. Too many schools misuse their control over admissions to break with inclusive local authority policies, selecting what they consider to be a more favourable intake of students. The Bill’s extension of the power to direct admissions to academies will ensure that local authorities can secure places for hard-to-place and vulnerable students, rather than allowing academies to exercise shameful selective admissions. Furthermore, by ending academy presumption, the Bill takes a significant step towards increasing academy accountability, empowering local authorities to better serve the needs of their communities, particularly helping SEND students and reducing reliance on unaffordable independent providers. I hope to see the severe disparity between teachers’ pay and…
- Rarely does a Labour Member make it quite so explicit that this Bill is about the producer interest, not the child. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwŵr spoke of nothing about standards or children — only pay, conditions and professional interests. This Bill contains 38 policy proposals all linked by the misguided notion that the bureaucrat knows best. Competition and innovation drive up standards; this Bill consolidates power in the hands of bureaucrats.
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden), who has done us and the nation a great service with the clarity of his speech. The Labour party is often accused of working to serve the producer interest rather than the consumer interest, looking after the needs of the trade unions and not those of the ordinary citizen or, in this case, the child. But rarely does any Labour Member make it quite so explicit as the hon. Gentleman just did, with a total betrayal of the child and a total focus on the needs of the professional, their interests, their pay, their disparities and their conditions. There was nothing about the child, nothing about the standards of education. Never have I seen a Labour Member speak up so honestly about what this Bill is really about. We should be enormously grateful to him for doing that, and for doing it so clearly—and in not many words. This Bill contains 38 policy proposals all linked by a troubling theme: the misguided notion that the bureaucrat knows best. In advocating for new schools to be opened and controlled by local authorities, the Government choose to ignore the evidence that competition and innovation are what drive up standards, and instead they consolidate power in the hands of bureaucrats.
A third of our children leave school without the basic qualifications to succeed in life. Outside London, academisation has not turned around life chances in the most deprived communities — trust after trust has failed those children. I will not accept that we should simply carry on with the same approach.Under the current system, a third of our children leave school without the basic qualifications to succeed in life, so does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that that shows that the current system is failing and needs change? Furthermore, in the communities with the most disadvantaged—I mean those outside of London—the academisation approach has not made an impact and has not turned around the life chances of children growing up in the most deprived wards. I have worked in those communities and with those schools and seen the impact of trust after trust failing those children. I will not accept that. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that that is unacceptable and that we have to move forward from this day to make greater improvements to make sure that the most disadvantaged students genuinely get the opportunities they deserve?
- Her passion for improvement is real — but she could not explain how the mechanics of the changes in this Bill will raise standards. The system being created by this Bill looks very much like the system in Wales — and Wales has the worst educational outcomes in the UK.
I thank the hon. Lady for her speech, if not intervention, and I certainly applaud her passion for the interests of children, disadvantaged children in particular, and her rage at failings in the system and her desire to see improvements, which might need to be radical, but we have not heard how the mechanics of the changes proposed in this Bill will raise standards. They will in fact dismantle them. The hon. Lady’s intervention comes in the context of my following the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr talking about Wales, and it is clear that the system being created by this Bill is much more akin to that in Wales, exactly as the hon. Gentleman so honestly said. Does the hon. Lady suggest that deprived children in Wales have better outcomes than they do in England? [Interruption.] She moved to stand up but then thought better of it, which was wise because she knows that the situation in Wales—which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is exactly what this Bill is trying to create—is infinitely worse than it is in England. Whatever the failings of the system in England, it is demonstrably better than it was 15 or indeed 25 years ago, and it is demonstrably better than it is in Wales.
- In my most recent conversation with headteachers in my constituency, not one of them raised concerns about the academies provisions in this Bill. They are concerned about SEND, which restricts them from making progress — not about academy governance.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way once again. In my most recent conversation with a group of my headteachers, not one of them raised concerns about this section of the Bill and the reforms. For them, the question of academisation and how the amendments have been made will not limit them in their capabilities to do the best for their children. They are concerned about issues that will come forward as a result of the Bill around SEND, which have been mentioned by hon. Members from across the House, and other things that are restricting them from making progress.
- In 2010, England ranked 27th globally in reading; by the time we left office, England’s students were the best readers in the western world and 90% of schools were good or outstanding, up from 68% in 2010. That happened through freedom, competition and accountability — the formula this Bill dismantles. Sir Jon Coles of United Learning says these proposals will effectively destroy the academy system. Clause 64 attacks parental choice: the Government admit in their impact assessment it “could also limit the ability of popular schools to grow” and “will negatively impact on parental preference.” New clause 38 makes the pay in the school teachers’ pay and conditions document a floor and extends freedoms to maintained schools — and new clause 39 would reverse the pause on 44 new state schools. I urge colleagues to support our amendments to stop this destructive agenda.
I thank the hon. Lady, but she again could not explain anything about the Bill. Her passion for improvement is great—we would all applaud that—but her linkage to anything in the Bill that will improve matters was distinctly missing. Many people, including Sir Jon Coles of United Learning, have criticised the proposals in the Bill; he said they will effectively destroy the academy system. I could not tell where the hon. Lady is on that, but the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr spoke with great clarity. Where once Labour promised us “education, education, education,” it now promises us bureaucracy, bureaucracy, bureaucracy. Tragically, it is our children who will bear the consequences. The outcomes of the last Labour Government serve as a stark warning of where the Bill will lead. In 2010, notwithstanding the nascent academy movement, we inherited a country where our children ranked 27th globally in reading. We spent more on education than Germany, yet achieved results that lagged behind nations like Poland. By the time we left office, England’s students were ranked as the best readers in the western world. In 2010, just 68% of schools were rated good or outstanding, but today that figure is 90%. These dramatic improvements did not happen by accident; they are the result of a system that puts freedom, competition and accountability at the centre of education, and equally importantly leaves mediocrity with nowhere to hide. If the Conservative education reforms were great, it was only because we were standing on the shoulders of giants. “Academies were introduced in the areas of greatest challenge, harnessing the drive of external sponsors and strong school leadership to bring new hope to our most disadvantaged areas.” Not my words, but those of the longest serving Labour Prime Minister, Sir Tony Blair, in 2005. To his credit, he recognised the failings of our country’s overly centralised education system and started the reforms that paved the way to make our…
I recognise the importance of safeguarding and ensuring vulnerable children don’t fall through the net. Amendments 4, 13 and 14 in my name would add to the Bill the definition of ‘suitable education’ that already appears in section 7 of the Education Act 1996. Without them, individual local authority officers decide what they think is suitable — there must be consistency.I commend the Minister on all the excellent work that has taken place so far on the Bill. My representations will be on home education. I recognise the importance of safeguarding and making sure that vulnerable children do not fall through the net; however, the home-educating community is growing, diverse and caring, and those involved are fiercely passionate about their children’s education and learning. Amendments 4, 13 and 14, which stand in my name, would add to the Bill the definition of “suitable education” that already appears in section 7 of the Education Act 1996. Without these amendments, it would be left to individual local authority officers to decide what they think is suitable education.
The Government’s absolute refusal to countenance amendments on equal protection demonstrates a lack of will to follow most other countries in implementing laws that protect children. The cross-party nature of academy reform should be acknowledged: I was a governor at one of the first academies, sponsored by a Labour donor, in a Conservative local authority; Liberal Democrat Minister David Laws also shaped the Academies Act 2010 from within coalition Cabinet.The debate on this Bill has been comprehensive. I rise to support a number of amendments to this Bill that hon. Friends have tabled, but I open on a point that has already been much debated, not only yesterday but during the Bill’s earlier stages. The Minister has said from the Dispatch Box that she regards the safety of children as being the Government’s highest priority, but the Government’s absolute refusal to countenance the amendments and proposals on equal protection demonstrates a lack of will to follow most other countries in implementing laws that provide that level of protection to children. That remains enormously disappointing, and will be an outstanding issue, in terms of child protection, for the foreseeable future. The measures before the House are primarily concerned with schools. I would like to back up a number of colleagues who have set out the long-standing cross-party nature of the measures that underpin the success of the education system in England. I was a governor at one of the first schools to ever become an academy. It was sponsored by a significant Labour party donor, who came forward to support a Conservative local authority that engaged with that programme. I also pay tribute to the work done by the Liberal Democrat Minister David Laws. He attended Cabinet as the Minister for school standards when the Academies Act 2010, which underpins everything structural that has driven forward academy standards, was implemented under the coalition Government. I was surprised to hear the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) disowning the contribution that the Liberal Democrats made, on a cross-party basis, to driving up school standards in England over the years.
- I chose my words carefully — I talked about the past decade, during which the Liberal Democrats were not in government. The Conservatives had seven or eight Education Secretaries in that time. That carousel of constant change tells us all we need to know about how much they valued education. The state of school buildings and the SEND system is the result.
I chose my words carefully. I talked about the past decade, during which the Liberal Democrats were not in government. The Conservatives had seven or eight Education Secretaries in that period. That carousel of constant change demonstrates how little those Education Secretaries valued education. The state of our school buildings, and of our special educational needs and disabilities system, tells us all we need to know about how much the Tories value education.
- David Laws shaped the legislation underpinning academy standards as a coalition Cabinet minister — all parties contributed. My concern with this Bill is that instead of asking ‘How do we build on progress?’, it asks ‘How do we hand control back to those with a vested interest in spending rather than in children’s attainment?’ That is why new clause 38 is so important: extending pay and conditions freedoms to maintained schools, which have driven some of the proudest progress in reading and maths among the youngest children.
It is important that we pay tribute to the work that David Laws did. As a key part of that coalition, he shaped the legislation that underpinned all the actions that followed, by the coalition and by Conservative Education Secretaries in majority Conservative Governments. We all need to recognise not only that education is a shared priority, but that all parties contributed to driving things forward and creating these structures over the years. I have a degree of sympathy with the Government on an issue that they are trying to address. It has always been a legal conundrum that successive education Acts have place detailed, specific legal obligations on local authorities regarding the provision of school places in general, and the provision of education to individual children to whom they owe a duty, but there are times when that is in conflict with the fact that academy schools are their own admissions authorities. That is not new; it has been true of faith schools for many years. Most of us in this House will have had casework arising from parents being frustrated about the difficulties in their relationship with their child’s school. However, a number of my hon. Friends have made the point that most of the measures in this Bill are not about relieving those issues that can be burdensome for families and children, but are about imposing much more centralised control over what goes on in the education system in England, where school standards have powered ahead of those that we see in other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly in Labour-run Wales. The outset of my journey on this issue was in the dying days of the last Labour Government, when I was a member of, and then chair of, the National Employers’ Organisation for School Teachers. That body, as an employer, provides evidence to determine pay and conditions for school teachers. We might generally conjecture, as members of the public or as members of the political establishment, that that would be a fairly…
I support this Bill in its entirety. More children are coming to school not ready to learn, the SEND crisis is real, child poverty is rising — that is the Conservative legacy. The Bill starts to address it.I rise to support this Bill in its entirety, and I will speak about part 2 in particular. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who spoke about people hanging their heads in shame. It is not in scope of the Bill, but I could talk about the fact that more children are coming to school not ready to learn. I could talk about the SEND crisis, the rise in child poverty or the number of young people who are not in education, employment or training. We could talk about the Conservatives’ legacy and hanging our heads in shame, but I do not think he would want to hear that.
There are good elements in this Bill — making it a duty to report abuse is right, breakfast clubs are welcome. But the Bill goes wrong where ideology takes precedence over the interests of the child. Child for child, those educated at home are the safest group — only 11% of section 47 child protection inquiries into home-educated children result in a protection plan, compared with 26% for school-educated children. Clause 26 would even expose grandparents reading to their grandchildren at weekends to a council notice and monetary penalty. New clause 53 would allow home-educated children to sit public examinations without paying hundreds of pounds — there is not a single clause in the whole Bill that supports home-educated children; there is plenty that regulates and controls them.There are good elements in this Bill. In line with Professor Jay’s recommendation, I agree that the House must urgently make it a duty to report abuse. As new clause 50 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) sets out, we also want a new authority established to deliver national and local inquiries into rape gang culture and the like. I fully support breakfast clubs, especially following the invention of free school meals—a few years ago—by a Liberal Government. These are good measures because they put the interests of the child at the centre of everything, and the Bill goes wrong where it puts ideology ahead of the interests of the child and loses sight of those interests. I do not support adding taxes to education, which is outside the scope of the Bill, and I am concerned about the effects on academies as well. Any conflation of children being educated other than at a traditional school with safeguarding concerns is not borne out by the evidence. It is also an ideological position that is an insult to the parents and families of the 110,000 children—our constituents up and down the country—who are doing a great job in ensuring that their children are educated, whether they are home tutored or educated otherwise. In fact, according to local authority data published in academic research that has been submitted to the Education Committee, only 11% of section 47 child protection inquiries into home-educated children result in a child protection plan. That rises to 26%—more than double—for the average of all predominantly school-educated children. Child for child, those educated at home are the safest and least in need of protection, so the overwhelming weight of new bureaucracy and legislation tackling home education as a sector is not justified. My hon. Friend’s new clause 48 is therefore quite right, because we should remove the burdensome and highly intrusive sanctions on such families. Unless amendment 221 tabled by my hon. Friend…
- The suggestion that improving children’s wellbeing and raising standards are mutually exclusive is simply wrong. This Bill represents a cultural shift — delivering change through partnership and child-centred policy. It goes back to the original purpose of academies: sharing best practice and encouraging collaboration. I support breakfast clubs and new clause 1 on auto-enrolment for free school meals. SEND schools are currently falling behind: one school near my constituency has shortened the school day by a whole hour against parents’ wishes — that would not be tolerated in a mainstream school. We must do better.
It is a privilege to stand again in support of the Bill. If we are to improve our school system for the benefit of all children, regardless of their background or educational needs, their welfare and interests need to be at the heart of any reform. Opposition Members’ suggestions that that cannot be done without sacrificing standards in education could not be further from the truth. It is because the Government are ambitious for all children that the commitment to excellence in education is the driving force behind the measures in the Bill. Labour knows that when standards in schools drop, it is working-class children and those whose attainment levels may already be lower on paper but who are no less impressive due to overcoming additional learning challenges, who will suffer. The Bill represents a cultural shift in how Government approach educational reform through delivering change in the sector through partnership and child-centred policy. The prioritisation of a child’s wellbeing and a focus on inclusion are not woolly concepts, but the bedrock of stability that will enable all children to thrive educationally. It is not contentious to say that we currently have a fragmented school system that is letting down far too many children. That needs to change. Children need to feel like they belong in their school. Every setting, regardless of type, must be given the freedom to drive up standards in a way that meets the needs of its pupils and communities. The Bill goes back to the original purpose of academies, which was to share best practice and encourage collaboration in the best interests of our children. Allowing councils to open new schools will ensure not just that more school places are available, but that the places are the best ones for local families and where they are needed. This is a very positive step forward. A focus on school structures alone will not help families, children or teachers. I support the roll-out of breakfast clubs, which will lead to ev…
Too many children with SEND are being offered access rather than inclusion in mainstream settings. We need to get to grips with the SEND crisis that we inherited from those on the Opposition Benches.One point that headteachers in my constituency report is that, sadly, too many children with SEND are being offered access rather than inclusion in mainstream settings. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to get to grips with the SEND crisis that, sadly, we inherited from those on the Opposition Benches?
- Absolutely — truly inclusive settings and the needs of every child must be at the centre of all our decisions. I look forward to working with colleagues and Ministers to continue driving high and rising standards in all our schools.
I absolutely agree. We look forward to what is going to happen on that, and particularly to what we will do to tackle those challenges and ensure that we offer truly inclusive settings and that the needs of every child are at the centre of all the decisions that we take. I look forward to working with colleagues and discussing with Ministers how we can continue to drive high and rising standards in all our schools.
New clause 34 would extend free school lunches to all primary school children. Barnardo’s is clear we are seeing epidemic levels of poverty — 4.3 million children nationally, 3,920 in my own constituency. The case is overwhelming on three grounds. First, it is good for children: research shows four to eight weeks’ more progress in maths and English over two years in universal free meal schools. Second, it is an effective investment: PricewaterhouseCoopers finds £1.71 generated in core benefits for every £1 invested. Third, it is more efficient: universal systems end means-testing gaps, reduce stigma and cut administration. One in three children in poverty are currently too wealthy to qualify under the current draconian eligibility criteria. Wales and London are leading the way — England needs to catch up. I also urge the Minister to accept amendment 173: of 41 serious case reviews involving home-educated children who died or suffered serious harm, over half — 23 — were previously known to children’s social care. Clause 37 as drafted would not safeguard them; amendment 173 extends the consent requirement to children previously subject to action under section 47 of the Children Act 1989.Today, I will concentrate on the important arguments for new clause 34 and amendment 173. New clause 34 would extend the provision of free school lunches to all primary school children. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), who tabled this important new clause for consideration in Committee, with the backing of 42 hon. Members, and to my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Ellie Chowns), who moved it. To set the context for new clause 34, the children’s charity Barnardo’s is clear that we are seeing epidemic levels of poverty among children in the UK. Across the country, families are facing a desperate struggle to put food on the table, keep the lights on and heat their homes. Nationally, 4.3 million children are in poverty; in my constituency, 3,920 children are growing up in poverty—that is 21% of children. This shocking state of affairs was a political choice made by the previous Government and those who backed austerity, and we should not repeat it. The No Child Left Behind campaign, which underpins new clause 34, is backed by more than 250 civil society leaders, from unions to charities, medical bodies to faith leaders and mayors to councils. This widespread backing is unsurprising because the case for universal free school meals is overwhelming. The need for free school meals is acute. We all remember Marcus Rashford igniting the campaign during the pandemic, pointing out that we could fill 27 Wembley stadiums with the 2.5 million children who did not know where their next meal might come from. The shameful legacy of child poverty continues. Poverty is embedded, with research from the University of Bristol showing that one in five schools run a food bank—a figure that is, I am told, even higher than the number of community food banks operated outside schools by the Trussell Trust and the Independent Food Aid Network combined. The National Education Union has explained that its members see the struggles of children in poverty every…
Three schools in my constituency have been chosen to pilot free school breakfast clubs. On illegal schools: at least 7,000 children attend them, usually run by extremist religious groups where children study only religious texts and have suffered physical and sexual abuse. Ofsted has lacked sufficient powers of entry; this Bill fixes that, granting increased powers of entry and stronger powers for criminal prosecutions. On the home-education register: Sara Sharif was removed from school partly to prevent detection of abuse. As parliamentarians we sometimes have to regulate the many to protect the most vulnerable. The 50% cap on faith-based admissions for new academies and free schools is a welcome step — faith selection is social selection by proxy.As a member of the Bill Committee, I have had detailed oversight of the measures in the Bill. They are vital for safeguarding children across the country, as well as supporting children and families with measures such as free breakfast clubs, reduced school uniform costs and extra support for kinship carers. I am thrilled that three schools in my constituency have been chosen to pilot free school breakfast clubs. They will put more money back in parents’ pockets and ensure that all children start the day right with a healthy meal. The Bill has been subject to healthy debate, both in this place and in Committee. It is a strong piece of legislation and one that has been strengthened through the parliamentary process. Looking through the amendment paper, I was interested to read new clause 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), on auto-enrolment for free school meals. Parents have contacted me who are eligible for free school meals but are finding the application process difficult and are being passed between the school and the council. Auto-enrolment would help those children and families get the support that they are entitled to from day one. It is important that children from all backgrounds have the same opportunities in life. I welcome measures aimed at tackling inequalities. I have spoken about the inequalities that arise from faith-based admissions to schools, where children are allocated school places based on the professed faith of their parents. I am pleased that the Government have confirmed the 50% cap on faith-based selection criteria for new academies and free schools. Faith-based schools are shown to be less diverse than their peers on a range of measures, including deprivation levels—measured by free school meals—the number of children with special educational needs and disabilities, and diversity of race and ethnicity compared with their local areas. The evidence shows clearly that faith selection is social s…
- In the Sara Sharif case, the murder happened in the school holidays and Sara was already known to social services. Does she accept there is actually no correlation in the data between home-educated children and children who ultimately need a care plan?
Does the hon. Lady accept that, in the tragic case of Sara Sharif, which my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr Forster) has been pursuing, the murder happened in the school holidays and Sara was already known to social services? There is not much evidence that the parents said they were going to home-educate in the first place. Given all those facts, does the hon. Lady accept that there is actually no correlation in the data between home-educated children and children who are ultimately judged to need a care plan?
- Sara was removed from school partly to prevent detection of the abuse — that does not speak to the vast majority of home-educating parents. But as parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect the most vulnerable, and sometimes that includes regulating the majority who are decent, honest people. Checking that children are safe and receiving a decent education is not a major imposition.
I acknowledge the complexity of that case and that the absolutely unacceptable failings before Sara’s death were abject across many organisations. However, she was removed from school partly so that her parents could prevent the detection of the abuse. I have recognised, and will continue to recognise, that that obviously does not speak to the vast majority of people who home-educate their children. However, as parliamentarians, we have a duty to protect the most vulnerable, and sometimes that includes regulating the majority, who are decent, honest people. I want to reassure parents that the new regulations, such as registers for children not in school and the capacity to compel school attendance in certain cases, are not aimed at limiting home education as a whole or about policing how people choose to educate.
- The intention is not the thing — it is the actual impact that counts. Take an autistic child whose parents, after letters to the headteacher and local authority and failure after failure, are forced into home education. Can she understand why those parents are fearful of an officer from that failing local authority having the right to enter their home and sit in judgement?
The intention is not the thing; it is the actual impact that counts. Let us take the example of someone who has taken their child out of school for the reasons that the hon. Lady has mentioned. Perhaps they have an autistic child who is miserable every day, and after letters to the headteacher and the local authority and failure after failure, they are forced to go into home education. Can she understand why parents are fearful of a representative of—as far as the parents are concerned—that failing local authority having the right to enter their home and sit in judgment over the child that they have been forced to home-educate? Can she understand why they would be fearful of the imposition a hard, top-down register, especially after so many years of successive Governments failing to provide any proper support for home educators?
- I accept wholeheartedly the failure of many families with SEND children by 14 years of Conservative Government. What I do not accept is that the proposal is a major imposition. Checking that children are receiving a decent education and are safe is not a major imposition — and having no oversight of children not in school is an unacceptable risk.
I accept wholeheartedly the amount of parents of children, particularly with SEND, who have been absolutely failed by our system and by 14 years of Conservative Government. What I do not accept is that the proposal is somehow a major imposition. I do not believe that checking that children are receiving a decent education and are safe and well cared for is a major imposition on parents, and I think all good parents would welcome that. These measures are being put in place to protect and safeguard vulnerable children. Having no oversight of children not in school is an unacceptable risk to children’s welfare. The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill is crucial, and cannot come too soon to protect our most vulnerable children and to support families up and down the country with rising costs. It has the welfare of children at its heart, and I am proud to have served on the Bill Committee and to have played a role in shaping this vital legislation.
This Bill is yet another example of Labour turning children’s education into an ideological battleground. Under the Conservatives, pupils soared up international league tables. Labour is intent on recreating the Venezuelan approach to education: here, the state, not parents, decides all.Like VAT on independent schools and putting up costs through national insurance contributions, this Bill is yet another example of Labour turning children’s education into an ideological battleground. I have said it before, but I will say it again: Labour clearly hates any form of education that is not state-controlled, local authority-run schooling, and this Bill is another example of that. Under the Conservatives, pupils soared up international league tables, ensuring that every child, regardless of postcode—except if they lived in Wales—received the best start in life. Labour is intent on reversing that progress, attacking academic freedoms and dismantling a system that has delivered demonstrable results for young people. Indeed, it was a system that Labour used to champion, but now it has come back to power and is looking to dismantle it. Most of this Bill is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. Like the Employment Rights Bill last week, it is bodged and being rushed through without proper scrutiny, and behind it all is the cold, dead hand of the union paymasters that fund Labour. I commented on it during debate on the Employment Rights Bill, and we have heard again today—I am afraid the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) has just left his place—that the “Jurassic Park” of the unions is back. Like last week, it is not Jeff Goldblum—
- Much of this Bill represents dangerous and unnecessary centralisation that will harm schools, teachers and, most importantly, pupils. Home educators in my constituency overwhelmingly oppose these measures — they feel vilified, not recognised for their dedication. Amendment 200 would require a local authority to give reasons when it refuses consent for home education — a proportionate alternative. Amendment 202 would remove the requirement for local authority consent for SEND children: in my area, 17% of independent school pupils receive SEND support yet only 6% have an EHCP, so home education in the interim is often the best option. Amendment 206 would remove the requirement for all academies to follow the national curriculum — education is not one-size-fits-all, and a SEND provision school in my constituency would struggle under state-imposed curriculum strictures.
It would be totally wrong of me to cast any aspersions on the hon. Gentleman’s teaching ability. I have not sat through one of his classes, but if it was anything like his speech an hour ago, I would perhaps be looking to find some other educational outlet for myself or my child. While I acknowledge that some of the child protection aspects of this Bill are important, much of it represents a dangerous and unnecessary centralisation of power that will harm schools, teachers and, most importantly, pupils. In recent meetings I have had with the Last Wednesday SEND group, as well as with home education groups across Surrey and Hampshire, there has been overwhelming concern about the proposed legislation. Many of those I have spoken to feel vilified for choosing to remove their children from mainstream education in favour of alternative specialised provision tailored to the individual needs of their children. I will take this opportunity to highlight five key amendments that I think are particularly important; I urge Members to give them their full consideration. The first is amendment 206, which would remove the requirement for all academies to follow the national curriculum. Clearly, a national curriculum can provide a broad and balanced education, but education is not a one-size-fits-all issue. The Bill seeks to stifle innovation, which is a dangerous and regressive move. It is particularly concerning for faith schools and alternative provision settings such as Pathways school, a SEND provision school in my constituency. Pathways school plays an invaluable role in educating vulnerable children and providing trauma-informed strategies alongside a high-quality, project-based curriculum. Excellent spaces such as those would struggle to continue under state-imposed education strictures. As a parent, I draw attention to new clause 41, which would give parents the right to review school curriculum materials to ensure their children are fairly exposed to material appropriate…
New clause 23, tabled in my name, would extend mandatory relationships, sex and health education to all young people aged 16 to 18 in further education, sixth form and apprenticeship settings. RSHE is currently compulsory only to the end of key stage 4. That creates a dangerous gap — 16-to-19-year-olds experience the highest rates of domestic abuse of any age group. Survivor Faustine Petron has said: “If I had received mandatory education on healthy relationships and coercive control in sixth form, I truly believe I would have recognised the signs of abuse earlier.” New clause 23 has been recommended by the Women and Equalities Committee, the chief medical officer and the Children’s Commissioner.I rise in support of new clause 23, tabled in my name, which seeks to extend mandatory relationships, sex and health education to all young people aged 16 to 18 in further education, sixth form and apprenticeship settings. RSHE is currently compulsory only to the end of key stage 4, when students are 16 years old, but young people remain in education or training until the age of 18. That creates a dangerous gap, in which thousands of young people are left without the vital education they need to stay safe and informed during a crucial and vulnerable period of their lives. Government data paints a stark picture. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that 16 to 19-year-olds experience the highest rates of domestic abuse of any age group, with 8% reporting incidents in the past year. That is precisely the age when young people are beginning to explore intimate relationships—a time when they need guidance on recognising coercive control, domestic abuse and harmful behaviours. We all know the tragic consequences of ignoring that gap. The recent case of Kyle Clifford, who murdered Carol, Louise and Hannah Hunt after reportedly being influenced by the misogynistic views of Andrew Tate, reminds us that toxic narratives can take root when young people are unable to access to reliable and positive education about healthy relationships and respect. That topic has also been powerfully explored in the new Netflix series “Adolescence” by Stephen Graham, which addresses the impact of misogynistic and harmful ideologies, particularly among vulnerable young people. The series, which I recommend to everyone, highlights how a lack of proper education in relationships and self-worth can leave young people susceptible to dangerous and controlling behaviour. Put simply, we cannot allow harmful voices to fill the vacuum that education should occupy. Education is not just important; it is lifesaving. Providing young people with clear lessons on consent, coercive control and…
While the reformer at DWP wants people into work, and the reformer at Health holds up academy schools as the model for NHS reform, the Education Department is taking a hammer to the machinery that has made English schools the best in the west. Clause 54 makes the national curriculum compulsory for all academies — the curriculum review’s interim report published today endorses the Secretary of State’s demand for a curriculum that de-prioritises traditional academic subjects, throwing into doubt the future of the EBacc. Clause 53 removes academy flexibility on teacher qualifications — yet the Government are not applying the QTS requirement to FE colleges, UTCs or studio schools. Clause 62 will give local authorities power to overrule headteachers and block school expansion — returning control from parents to often very ideological local politicians. The Secretary of State could not bring herself to congratulate Katharine Birbalsingh when Michaela was ranked best school in the country for progress.I must confess I am worried about the Education Secretary and her future employment prospects. She may share the confusion of the public and wonder whether the Prime Minister is a socialist or a pragmatist, a tax-and-spend lefty or a quango cutter, a human rights lawyer or a war leader, but Education Ministers seem to have missed the latest McSweeney memo. While the reformer in the Department for Work and Pensions says she wants to get people off welfare and into work, and the reformer in the Department of Health and Social Care holds up school reform and academies as the model for his changes to the NHS, the luddites in the Education Department are taking a hammer to the machinery that has made English schools the best in the west. This Bill—along with the curriculum review, a weakened Ofsted, the threat to SATs in primary schools, the end of free schools and weaker discipline policies—undoes decades of hard-won reform and higher standards. It should be obvious that the objective for our school system is higher standards. Of course, Ministers pay lip service to that idea, but their actions belie their words, not just with this Bill but with the appointment of an academic to run the curriculum review who has criticised past Governments’ “obsession with academic achievement.” Standards improved through the years of school reform because Governments put their trust in heads and teachers, parents, and the philanthropists and public servants who sponsored free schools and academies. We followed what we understood from neurological science and research about how children learn, from work on cultural literacy to the knowledge that higher-level skills are dependent on the automatic mastery of lower-level activity. We turned to synthetic phonics, maths mastery, a knowledge-rich curriculum, teacher-led instruction and traditional academic subjects, and watched pupils fly. When I compare my own education with what my children are taught today, the difference is truly staggeri…
This Bill delivers on the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity: it will drive high and rising standards, cut the cost of sending children to school and stop children falling through the cracks with landmark safeguarding reforms.It is an absolute pleasure to speak in support of the Bill, which delivers on the Government’s mission to break down barriers to opportunity. The Bill will drive high and rising standards in school, cut the cost of sending children to school for my constituents and make life easier for families in my area. Its landmark reforms to safeguarding and children’s social care will stop children from falling through the cracks.
- England has the best primary school readers in the western world; at secondary we went from 27th to 11th in mathematics and from 25th to 13th in reading under the last Government — that is the base this Government inherit. On breakfast clubs: the Government say the pilot saves parents £450 per child, but funding to schools goes as low as £114 per child — a gap schools will have to bridge. On uniforms: removing branded sports kit doesn’t automatically cut costs. On free school meal auto-enrolment: IT barriers are melting away — I hope the Government look at this seriously. The soul of this debate is whether freedom plus accountability — or centralised control — delivers better outcomes for children. The evidence from Wales is clear.
I am grateful to be called to speak in the debate. It has been an honour to be a member of the Bill Committee. Over many days, we considered the Bill in detail, providing line-by-line scrutiny. Today, there are many amendments before us, many of which I support, and there are important issues to discuss, including elective home education. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) made some excellent points, and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) also made important points. It is important that we discuss the breakfast club provision. In principle, schools providing breakfast to children is a good thing—why not?—but as we get closer to implementation, colleagues on the Labour Benches may find themselves getting more mail from headteachers in their constituencies, noting that the Government say that the pilot scheme will save parents £450 per child, but the amount of money that the Government are giving to schools goes down as low as £114 per child. That is clearly quite a gap for schools to make up, and we will see how they intend to do that. We had some good debates on uniform in Committee. I gently say to Labour colleagues that if they think the changes in uniform will automatically result in the cost of sending children to school going down—because everybody will go to Asda and get unbranded clothing, so there will be no pester power or fashion competitions when it comes to sportswear, for example—next time they do a school visit, they should go to a PE lesson and look down at the children’s feet. If they cannot make it to a PE lesson, just wait for the end of the school day, stay at the school gate and look at the children’s bags. It is not automatically the case that not having uniform items for sport, for example, makes things cheaper. I also hope that at some point during the passage of this legislation, the Government will get rid of the bizarre anomaly by which they say it is all right to have a school t…
Does he share my concern that there was cross-party consensus on the huge benefits of academies — brought in by new Labour, advanced by the Conservatives — but this Government seem to be ripping up that consensus?My right hon. Friend has referred not only to the previous Government, but to the new Labour Government before that. Does he share my concern, and perhaps my confusion? I thought there was consensus on the huge benefits of academies, which were brought in by new Labour and advanced by the previous Conservative Government, but this Government seem to be ripping up that consensus through this Bill.
- There were always Labour figures swimming against the tide to push reform through — but there has never been a universal consensus on academies. What the Government are doing now is writing into legislation that all schools must follow a curriculum whose content we do not yet know. That removes the safety valve against the over-politicisation of what children are taught, and takes away the reassurance that faith schools currently have.
My hon. Friend is certainly right that over the years, there have been many brilliant, far-sighted people in the Labour party who have overlooked their political tradition and said, “We must just do what is best for the children.” I do not think there has ever been a universally accepted consensus on academies; until very recently, there have been groups actively organising against schools becoming academies, with leading members of the Labour party involved in those movements. There has always been a strand, which turns out to be wider than we realised, of the Labour party that believes that unless there is control from the top, through councils, and unless schools are told what to do, the system is inconsistent. Some consistency in education is very important, but that is not the same as uniformity, and certainly not the same as top-down control. It turns out that Government Ministers do not want transparency and choice. They do not want diversity. In particular, they seem to want to curtail the improvement in school performance that has been made possible through academy trusts. The Government have already stopped new free schools. This Bill can not only stop academies growing in size, but can stop them staying the same size, even if they are popular with parents. We all know that the Bill erodes freedoms, starting with the qualified teacher status requirement. It is not as if schools are going around willy-nilly, recruiting people without qualifications off the streets. They are not putting cards up in Tesco saying, “Apply now to teach, no prior experience or qualifications required”—of course they are not. Equally, though, a headteacher who is trying to do the best for his or her school and its children might have a reason to bring in somebody from a profession. They might want to bring in somebody with a sports background, somebody from the private sector, or somebody from another country to help with their school’s language programme, but no, we do not trust…
- Has he seen Tim Leunig’s article in Schools Week on Ofsted’s new report card system? If standards fall because of this Bill, the new system risks switching off the light that lets us see that — ‘reliability and validity are in tension’ as Leunig puts it. Ofsted must continue to put a bright and reliable light on the education system.
Has my right hon. Friend seen Tim Leunig’s article in Schools Week talking about Ofsted’s new report card system following the Labour manifesto commitment? One danger is that, if my right hon. Friend is right and we see a reduction in standards, the Bill could switch off the light that allows us to see that, because “reliability and validity are in tension”, as Tim Leunig puts it. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that Ofsted must ensure that it continues to put a bright and reliable light on the education system, so that we can see whether the policies in this Bill work?
- Tim Leunig is a perceptive thinker and I will look up his article. Under the last Labour Government, we fell down the international comparisons while 11 different internal measures made things look like they were improving. We must guard against that again. What happened between 2010 and 2024 was about brilliant teachers in an ecosystem that valued autonomy and accountability together — the knowledge-rich curriculum, synthetic phonics, maths mastery, school-to-school learning. That combination is now at risk.
I do, and my right hon. Friend gives me two valuable opportunities. The first is to pay tribute to the great Tim Leunig. We do not often talk about him in this House. He has friends here, and he is a perceptive thinker. I will look up his article. The other opportunity that my right hon. Friend gives me is to highlight the discrepancy we can get when things appear to be getting better, when in fact they are not. That is what happened under the last Labour Government when, in spite of us falling down the international comparisons, they managed to find 11 different ways in the system to make it look like our GCSE results were improving year after year. We do not want that to happen again. There were those champions in the new Labour years who made these great reforms happen and would want to continue them now, so I say to those on the Government Benches: where are the champions today? Where are those in the modern Labour party who will say, “No, we will not be bound by ideology. We are going to do what is in the best interests of the children”? I hope there will be some of those champions in the other place. To be fair, I was mildly encouraged this morning to hear the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, when questioned on the radio about the fate of this Bill, appearing to be somewhat open-minded, shall we say, about what might happen. To be fair, I have even been slightly encouraged listening to the Secretary of State for Education in recent days and weeks. She has sounded like she might be a little bit open to rowing back from some of the worst excesses of this legislation. There is still time. There will be weeks of this legislation being considered in the other place, so I just ask the Government to please take that time to think carefully about the legacy they will be leaving and to turn those words into deeds.
Quality of teaching is the single biggest driver of school standards. As a former teacher, I welcome the Bill’s requirement that all teachers have or are working towards qualified teacher status. I find it difficult listening to Opposition Members — who left teachers so fed up and broken that colleagues of mine who had inspired me looked utterly disenchanted when I met them shortly after the election.I thank the Ministers for their contributions. It is an honour to have an opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents and my former colleagues in the teaching profession on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. Quality of teaching is the single biggest driver of standards in schools. The Bill will ensure that all teachers have or are working towards qualified teacher status. As a former teacher, I welcome that. It is fair to say from the chuntering I have been doing from this Bench that I feel passionately about education. I find it difficult, listening to Opposition Members—I recognise that they generally care passionately about education, but sadly my experience of teaching under their Government was different from how they describe it. I once again ask the Minister to recognise that she is inheriting a workforce in the education system that is absolutely at rock bottom. Let me stress, however—I want to make this clear to Conservative Members—that I put the wellbeing and education of children above any politics. When I talk about the education of young people, I talk not just about examinations but what is described in the teaching profession as the hidden curriculum: important life skills. Indeed, I became quite animated when a month ago, on this very spot, I spoke in a debate about the importance of financial education. As I have said, for me a well-qualified teacher is one who still takes a joy in education that has not been sucked out of him by the endless barrage of comments in the press, and, I must add, a revolving door of Conservative Education Secretaries, although I should offer an olive branch to the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds)—[Interruption.] I was about to say something nice about the right hon. Gentleman.
Conservative Members keep transporting us to an educational nirvana that never existed. Parents and children remember the real-terms funding cuts, increasing class sizes, the millions of days lost to industrial action, and the 11% of children going hungry compared with the 8% OECD average. PISA scores were going down — just not as fast as other countries.At several points today, we have been transported by Conservative Members to the educational nirvana that supposedly existed under the Tory Government. That is not the memory I have, or the memory that many parents and children have. They, I think, remember the real-terms funding cuts that happened for much of the last 14 years, increasing class sizes, the millions of days lost to industrial action by unions who were fed up with the hectoring nature of previous Conservative Governments, and the 11% of children who were going hungry compared with the 8% OECD average. PISA rankings are all very well and good, but PISA scores were going down; they were just not going down as fast as those in other countries.
- Shortly after the election I met former teacher colleagues who just looked broken — maths teachers who had inspired me early in my career, now completely disenchanted. We have to change that. And on Government amendments 166 and 167: data protection must never get in the way of safeguarding. The hardest day of my teaching career was when a young person made a disclosure and then begged me not to tell anyone — these amendments get that balance right.
I thank my hon. Friend for painting a better picture than the one painted by Conservative Members. Shortly after the election, in August, I met a couple of former teacher colleagues who were still in the profession, and they just looked broken. It was really difficult to see, because they have been maths teachers for a long period of time. When I first became a teacher, they inspired me to persevere, to reflect on the bad days and to have better lessons. To see them so fed up and so disenchanted with being a teacher was really difficult, and we have to change that. I emphasise again to the Minister that it is really important that we ensure that we support teachers’ mental health. I was going to intervene on the right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) to ask him whether he recognises that happy and supported teachers lead to happy and supported young people, which is really important.
I strongly support the Bill’s child protection measures and the harmonisation of admissions. But Clause 26 requires the register to include names and home addresses of both parents and all places of education — with no exceptions for families fleeing domestic abuse or estrangement. That creates a serious safeguarding risk. Amendment 195 would exclude weekend and holiday activities. Home-educated children must also be able to sit public examinations without paying hundreds of pounds — new clause 53 would provide for that.I thank the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for schooling me in maths—I am not very good at that. I begin by expressing my strong support for the Bill, particularly its efforts to enhance child protection and ensure better collaboration between professionals involved in children’s care. I welcome the measures in part 2 that seek to harmonise admissions and provide cost of living support for families, especially those from deprived backgrounds. Parents whose children are in state-funded education deserve transparency. They should have access to clear information about their child’s education and be assured that schools and trusts are operating fairly, and I look forward to measures coming forward that are not in the Bill but which will really make a difference for children, such as the child poverty strategy, the SEND review and the curriculum review. However, there is one part of this Bill that I believe needs to be amended: the level of unnecessary scrutiny that is being imposed on parents who choose to home-educate their children. Rather than protecting them, elements of the proposed register risk putting such families in danger. Let me be clear: I support the principle of the register. As corporate parents, local authorities need to know where children are if they are not attending school. Collecting some information and the reasons for elective home education is important, not only for child protection but so that authorities can plan for the future. We know that some children who are home-educated later return to school, and many parents make this choice because local education provision does not meet their child’s needs, either temporarily or permanently. That presents an opportunity for local authorities and multi-academy trusts to work collaboratively with families to ensure that curricula and school offerings are inclusive of their needs. However, proposed new section 436C of the Education Act 1996, which governs the content and maintenance of the home…
- Does she accept that grandparents reading to their grandchildren, and free home education groups, could be driven out of existence by the scale of reporting Clause 26 will impose on them?
In that vein, does my hon. Friend accept that, as I mentioned, grandparents reading to their grandchildren could be considered as providing home education and should be inspected and reported on, and vital home education groups providing services free of charge could be driven out of business by the scale and weight of reporting they will have to provide?
- Home-educated children spend plenty of time with peers — just different peers, others who prefer to learn outside a school environment. There is a real risk of those communities being driven underground or lost altogether. Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 already places a duty on parents to ensure suitable education, and local authorities already have the power to intervene. Any register should begin with minimum requirements, not this level of intrusion.
I think a lot of people who do not know anything about home education miss the fact that there is a whole community of home educators, and home-educated children spend plenty of time with their peers, but they are just different peers—others who prefer to have their education outside a school environment—and there is a risk of such organisations being driven underground or lost altogether. Under section 7 of the Education Act 1996, parents already have a duty to ensure that their child receives a suitable education, whether through school or otherwise, and local authorities can already conduct informal inquires and issue school attendance orders if they believe a child is not receiving an appropriate education, so this is simply overkill. A formal register would help to ensure accountability, but this is overreach. My amendment 221 proposes a more practical solution of requiring only those who provide more than six hours per week of education or activity to be included in the register. That strikes a reasonable balance by ensuring that key educators are identified without overwhelming families or local authorities. While there are genuine safeguarding concerns, local authorities already have the power to intervene under section 47 of the Children Act 1989. The Victoria Climbié Foundation stated that the provision proposed in the Bill would have done nothing to help Sara Sharif because the local authority had already decided that the child was not at risk.
- If a register does go ahead — and I do not support one — it should start with minimum requirements and expand only if needed. Local authorities already have the power to intervene where they believe education is not suitable. Conflating welfare and education in the way this Bill does particularly upsets home educators.
I hope colleagues in the other place will follow up on the hon. Lady’s excellent speech. To focus in on that point, if a register does go ahead—the hon. Lady supports that; I do not—it should start with the minimum requirements, and then it could be expanded if that is needed, rather than be spread out in this way. To reinforce the point she makes, local authorities already have the power to intervene if it appears to them that someone is not having a suitable education, and they have all the powers required if there are concerns about welfare. Conflating welfare and education in the way this Bill does particularly irritates and upsets home educators.
- Home educators I represent were devastated to hear themselves described as pariahs rather than caring parents. I support amendments 195 and 197, seeking clarity that activities during weekends and school holidays should not be subject to this overreach. Children in home education should have the same rights as every other child. New clause 53 would ensure they can sit public examinations without their parents having to fund it. I also want to flag: while I have sat here today, another teacher has been suspended by a multi-academy trust. If teachers are treated badly and leave the sector, that harms children.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In fact, Kathryn from my constituency wrote me a very long email talking about welfare versus education—two totally separate issues. People are really upset and would have been devastated and distraught to hear the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Lizzi Collinge) effectively make them feel like they were some sort of pariah. I was really upset to hear that, especially as I asked home educators in my constituency to listen to the debate and give me their feedback. I support amendments 195 and 197, tabled by the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), which seek clarity that educational activities outside regular school terms should not be subject to this overreach. My children are not subject to them, and children in home education should not be subjected to anything more than the rest of us. Children receiving education out of school should have the same rights to take their public examinations as their peers. It should not be based on a parent’s ability to fund that. After all, the Treasury already saves many thousands of pounds for every home-educated child. New clause 53, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson), would provide support for parents by providing for home-educated children to sit any relevant examination and to be fully funded where requested. I thank the Minister for confirmation on one point: as I sat here this afternoon, I received a letter to say that the challenges faced by summer-born children will now be considered. I would like to pass on the thanks—[Interruption.] Well, I’ll save the rest of it for you. I was not going to speak about academies, but as I sat here over several hours I received two more emails relating, in particular, to concerns about their governance. I heard the challenge from those on the Conservative Benches about the comments by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr (Steve Witherden) on teachers, but I cannot tell the…
One in two children in my constituency — Liverpool Riverside, the most deprived in the country — live in poverty. Nearly one in five households with children suffer from food insecurity. If those children lived in London, Scotland or Wales they would have universal free school meals; in Liverpool they learn on an empty stomach. Universal free school meals are not a cost — for every £1 spent, £1.71 is generated in core returns. The income threshold of £7,500 for eligibility has not risen for years and up to 250,000 eligible children are missing out.I rise in support of the Bill and in support of the amendments that seek to increase access to free school meals, a policy that would make a world of difference to the one in two children living in poverty in my constituency, the most deprived in the country. I also want to pay tribute to the amazing teachers in all the schools in Liverpool Riverside who go above and beyond every single day, not only for the children but for their parents. Research last summer showed that nearly one in five households with children were suffering from food insecurity. That is made worse by cruel and punitive policies, such as the two-child cap on benefits. Universal free school meals would go a huge way towards immediately alleviating the pressures that these families are facing. In the sixth richest country in the world, no child should go to school hungry and all children should be supported to achieve their full potential. Some 47% of children in my constituency now live in poverty. If those children lived in London, Scotland or Wales, they would have access to universal free schools meals at primary school. However, because they live in Liverpool, many are forced to learn on an empty stomach. That is indefensible and unfair. The Government should take the opportunity presented by the Bill to put an end to that postcode lottery and extend free school meals for all so that no child goes hungry and no child is left behind. The evidence is clear: the impact of universal free school meals is life changing. Research has found that they ease the financial burden on families, help children to focus in class, reduce stigma and foster stronger school communities. They far outstrip other policies in all those areas, including breakfast clubs and means-tested free school meal schemes. Teachers in my constituency have told me about the devastating reality that they see every single day, with children coming to school unable to buy lunch and unable to concentrate or learn properly. No matter…
My 20 years in education tell a very different story from what we hear from the Opposition. In a school I was involved with through local government, 17 sharps were found in a school bag, yet there was no police involvement, no oversight, no accountability. A child threatened with one of those sharps had the perpetrator placed back in her class three days later. No child can focus on learning when they are scared for their safety — that is exactly what this Bill addresses.I rise today in support of amendments 27 and 43 and new clause 1, as proposed by the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes). I agree with her, because the truth of my experience in education over the past 20 years is far different from the experiences and views that we hear from those on the Opposition Benches. At this point, I must refer to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and to my partner’s interests. In a previous life, I raised a motion at North Warwickshire borough council to convene a multi-agency meeting to tackle knife crime in our schools. In one school, 17 sharps had been found in a school bag in a search that I am told saw school “bouncers”—large men in black suits and ties—stripping through students’ bags and removing sanitary products from girls’ bags in public corridors. I appreciate that we need strong measures on knives in schools, but what really baffled me, and the reason why we moved a motion at the council, was that there was no police involvement, no oversight and no accountability from school authorities. At that time, the school also had one of the highest rates for exclusion and persistent absenteeism in the country. It is not hard to understand the link. A friend of mine—I will call her Rosie—went to the school and was thriving. She attended regularly and was getting on well. She was then threatened by a classmate with one of these sharps. The culprit was excluded for three days and then put back in the same class as Rosie. Unsurprisingly, she was quite uncomfortable with the school’s decision. There was no accountability and no changes were made by the school. How on earth can a child be expected to focus on their learning when they are scared for their own safety?
New clause 6 would introduce a national monitoring system for school food: 60% of secondary schools are already failing to follow school food standards, with no mechanism to check what is actually on children’s plates. The Government’s single-model approach to breakfast clubs — a canteen club for 30 minutes before school — will not work everywhere. Amendment 212 would require data collection on who benefits. Amendments 213 and 216 to 218 would enable flexible models like classroom breakfasts, grab-and-go and nurture groups — take-up in Magic Breakfast schools is 375% higher than in non-Magic Breakfast schools. Amendment 219 would extend breakfast club provision to older pupils in special schools, which often share a site with primary pupils: approximately 100,000 pupils and just 2.22% more in the policy’s scope.I rise to speak to new clause 6 tabled by children’s food champion, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson), and to amendments 212 to 220 in my name. I also put on record my support for new clause 1 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), new clause 7 tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson) and new clause 49 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool West Derby (Ian Byrne). It will come as no surprise that I am also a fan of new clause 34 because, thanks to the last Government, over 4 million children are in poverty, and I will always support anything that makes their little lives and that of their families more bearable. New clause 6 would introduce a much-needed national monitoring system for school food. Of course, school food standards already exist, but not all schools are meeting them. There is far too much variance. There are some brilliant examples of heart-healthy, nutritious meals that fuel children for the rest of the school day. Then, there are examples where unhealthy fizzy drinks and fried food are the norm. Some 60% of secondary schools have been found not to follow the school standards at all. A study from Impact on Urban Health shows significant differences between what is mandated by the school standards and what is on menus and what ends up on plates. There is far too much free rein. There is no mechanism for school food standards to be checked against what pupils are being served. The new clause would end the postcode lottery of school food so that standards no longer just exist on paper but are on our children’s plates. The amendments in my name all relate to strengthening school breakfast club provision. After years of pushing my School Breakfast Bill, no one was happier than me when the Labour Government legislated for school breakfasts. It is great to see that three of the pilots are in schools in my constituency. Some 2.7 million children live…
- The Chair of the Education Committee rightly pointed out how quickly this Bill has been prepared and pushed through, which explains the number of amendments at this stage. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and Glyndwŵr put the case for producer interest over the child with unusual clarity — and the PISA data are damning: England rose from 21st to seventh in maths, while Wales went from 29th to 27th in maths and collapsed from 21st to 29th in science. The IFS finds that disadvantaged children in England now outperform all children in Wales.
With the leave of the House, we have had an excellent debate this afternoon, as we did in Committee. I will pick out only a few of the contributions. We had important words from the Chair of the Education Committee, the hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who pointed out how quickly the Bill had been prepared and pushed through. That is why we have so many amendments on Report and, to be honest, one reason that the Bill has run into such trouble. My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) gave a great speech, drawing on his experience as the Chair of the Select Committee, and the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Abtisam Mohamed) gave an excellent speech, laying out why the provisions on home schooling are an excessive burden and go too far. We all agree that it is about making sure that children are not just “not in school”; however, the provisions really are overly burdensome. The hon. Members for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Vikki Slade) and lots of Conservative colleagues pointed out the same thing. I have to say that my jaw hit the floor when I first read the Bill and saw the provisions that treat the parents of children in special schools the same as people who are being investigated by social services. Those people are not criminals, they are not doing the wrong thing and sometimes they need to move to look after their vulnerable children. I hope the Government will think again in the other place.
I agree on special schools. But why are the Opposition not pushing to a vote today the amendment on extending local authority consent to children in need, not just those on a child protection plan — a point the shadow Minister himself raised in Committee?I agree with the shadow Minister on the point about special schools. Additionally, in Committee in January, he raised the point about local authority consent for some children to be withdrawn from school, and how that should be extended from children who are subject to a child protection plan to children who are regarded as a child in need. Why are the Opposition not pushing that to a vote today?
- We have a limited number of votes we can press, but I hope both Houses agree that the requirements being made of home educators are excessive — they must not be treated as illegitimate. On the international data: England went from 11th to ninth in science, 19th to ninth in reading, 21st to seventh in maths under the last Government. Wales went from 29th to 27th in maths, was flat at 28th in reading, and collapsed from 21st to 29th in science. The IFS is unmistakeable: disadvantaged children in England score about 30 points higher than disadvantaged children in Wales. These are the policies this Government now want to impose on England. We are moving to a vote to protect academy freedoms, stop good schools from being prevented from growing, and protect parental choice.
We have a limited number of things that we can press to a vote, but I hope, as we go to the debate in the other place, that we are in complete agreement on the excessive nature of some of the requirements being made of home schoolers, who we must not treat as illegitimate just because they choose to educate their children in a certain way. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) used his huge experience to take us on a rather bleak journey from the reforming agenda of the early Blair years to the regress that we are seeing now. My hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford) explained why this was such a mistake and took us through the Bill in bleak detail. I do not always agree with the hon. Member for Coventry South (Zarah Sultana), but I do agree with her on Andrew Tate, whom I regard as totally abhorrent. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick), the shadow Justice Secretary, is leading the charge to get the Tates deported to this country so that they can face justice here. I find their work utterly, utterly abhorrent. My brilliant hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Nick Timothy) contrasted the reforming rhetoric that we at least see in other Departments with the rather retro agenda in the Department for Education. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who did so much work in Committee, gave us another brilliant and witty speech. He talked about how Labour reformers had always been swimming against the tide, and I think that is right. He also talked about the free school breakfast numbers that the Government have used and the claim that they are going to save parents £450. This is a mysterious figure, because if we want to give £450 to every primary school child, that will cost north of £2 billion, but the Government are spending £33 million, so they are two orders of magnitude apart. Why will the Government not publish the workings behin…
- On breakfast clubs: all pupils, including those with SEND and those in special schools, are already within the existing drafting of Clause 30 — the early adopter programme, including about 50 specialist schools, will show us how to get this right. A food-only offer risks undermining the club element — the settled start to the day that improves attendance and behaviour. On free school meals: officials are working with the Government Digital Service to explore further data sharing to enrol more families, with those provisions in place from next year, well ahead of September 2026. Officials are also working with the DWP to support enrolment through universal credit. On uniforms: a monetary cap would increase costs for schools and could lead to more frequent uniform changes. Our three-item limit provides clarity; schools are encouraged to use sew-on badges as a cost-effective way to brand plain items.
I thank all hon. Members for their contributions, some of which have been well considered and delivered powerfully—others less so. This Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity by driving high and rising standards. That has to be the right of every child, delivered through excellent teaching and leadership, a high-quality curriculum, and a system that removes the barriers to learning that hold too many children back, all underpinned by strong and clear accountability. This Bill delivers the legislative elements of the broader vision that we are determined to deliver. As part of that, from next term free breakfast clubs will start being rolled out in early adopter schools across the country, including special schools and alternative provision settings. Members who tabled amendments 2, 219 and 220 are right that it is critical that the new breakfast clubs are accessible for children with special educational needs and disabilities. All pupils, including those with SEND and those in special schools, are already in the existing drafting of the clause. The need to get this right is why we are testing, and learning through, the early adopter programme. On amendments 214, 215, 217 and 218, it is important to be clear on the distinction between food-only options being “alongside” or “instead of” the breakfast clubs. The club is as important as the breakfast. It gives children a settled start to the day and will secure improvements in attendance and behaviour, so the right approach is to legislate to give schools certainty of the minimum they need to provide and to work with early adopters to see how schools can maximise attendance at these clubs. To promote food-only offers may risk undermining the club element. Let us be clear: we inherited a shameful legacy from the previous Government. Compared with when Labour last left office, 700,000 more children are growing up with their lives and life chances scarred by poverty. Children cannot achieve or thrive…
- On the basis of what the Minister has set out today on auto-enrolment and data sharing, I am content not to push new clause 1 to a vote. But the Select Committee will closely monitor free school meal take-up, and if the expected progress is lacking, we will come back and press auto-enrolment again.
The Minister has set out the Government’s commitment to increasing the take-up of free school meals for children who are already eligible, as well as a number of practical measures the Government are taking to make registration easier. On the basis of what she has said today, I am content not to push my new clause 1 to a vote. However, the Select Committee will continue to closely monitor the take-up of free schools meals. Should the progress that the Minister expects to see be lacking, we will come back and press the issue of auto-enrolment again with her and expect that she looks at it again.
- We will work closely with the Education Committee to communicate progress on free school meals. On school food standards, we are working with the Food Standards Agency on the findings of the 2022-23 compliance pilot. On home education: section 7 of the Education Act 1996 is already clear that education must be suitable to a child’s age, ability, aptitude and any special educational needs; we will make that clear in statutory guidance for local authorities. We encourage schools to use sew-on badges as a cost-effective branding option.
I thank my hon. Friend for her diligence both in her role as Chair of the Select Committee and on this issue in particular. We want children to receive the entitlements that will transform their life chances. Indeed, we will work closely with her Committee to ensure that we communicate well with the House on those important issues. Our determination to deliver better life chances for our children does not stop there. As well as free breakfast clubs, we are delivering the holiday activities and food programme, enabling disadvantaged children and children identified by their local authorities to access healthy food and enriching activities in the school holidays. We will go further by supporting every child to achieve and thrive, including those with special educational needs and disabilities, and by putting money back in their parents’ pockets. Another part of that picture is the sad increase in childhood obesity, which, unfortunately, the Conservative party did very little to address. We must ensure that, alongside clubs and activities, the food that children have at school is healthy and balanced, and embeds healthy eating habits. We must ensure compliance with school food standards. With reference to new clause 6, we are working with the Food Standards Agency to take forward the findings of the 2022-23 compliance pilot on how best to tackle the barriers identified. On new clause 54, I can confirm that the Government will continue to publish comprehensive data on free school meals, and on the holiday activities and food programme, to ensure that our approach is informed by the best available evidence. Tackling child poverty is imperative for the Government and for our society. It goes beyond the provision of food to putting money back in families’ pockets, giving them choice and agency in ensuring that their children are set up for the future. Our action to cut the cost of school uniform is just another part of that picture. We are taking steps to cut the cost for…
- #127rejectedNew clause to register children for free school meals — rejected A proposed new clause (NC7) would have required the registration of children for free school meals. It was rejected at the Commons report stage, 77–313.Ayes 77Noes 313
- #128rejectedNew clause for free school lunches for all primary pupils — rejected A proposed new clause (NC34) would have provided free school lunches to all primary school children. MPs rejected it at the Commons report stage, 77–315.Ayes 77Noes 315
- #129rejectedAmendment to remove Clause 45 — rejected Amendment 209 sought to remove Clause 45 from the bill. MPs rejected it at the Commons report stage, 107–324.Ayes 107Noes 324
- #130rejectedAmendment to remove Clause 51 — rejected Amendment 210 sought to remove Clause 51 from the bill. MPs rejected it at the Commons report stage, 167–324.Ayes 167Noes 324
This legislation belongs to children. The Bill cements the biggest reform of children’s social care in a generation — keeping children with their families where safe, strengthening kinship care, fixing the broken care market. It lays the groundwork for a single unique identifier for children, multi-agency child protection teams, and the requirement for consent before children subject to child protection plans can be home educated. Free breakfast clubs in primary schools will save families up to £450 a year; the new limit on expensive branded uniforms will save some parents over £50 per child. Parents want qualified teachers, certainty about the curriculum, breakfast clubs, cheaper uniforms and stronger safeguards. If the Opposition oppose this Bill, that is what they are opposing.I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time. This is legislation that belongs to children. The clue is in the name—the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill. It is for them. It is because this Government are for them. We are on a mission to break down the barriers to opportunity for each and every child, to sever the link between background and success, and this Bill sits at the centre of that mission. Let me start by thanking Members from across the House for their contributions, especially members of the Bill Committee for their scrutiny. I say a particular thank you to the ministerial team—my hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards and the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth South (Stephen Morgan)—for guiding the Bill through its Commons stages. This debate is valuable. Education is back at the forefront of national life and children are back at the centre of our national conversation. Every child in this country deserves a safe childhood and an excellent education. The action in the Bill cements in legislation the biggest reform of children’s social care in a generation, keeping children with their families wherever it is safe to do so, supporting them to stay together and strengthening kinship care so that vulnerable children can live with the people they know and trust if they cannot continue to live with their parents. It fixes the broken care market so that when children cannot stay with their family, and kinship or foster care sadly is not an option, children have somewhere to live that is safe, secure and supportive. After 14 years of inaction and our most vulnerable children being pushed to the sidelines, their voices not heard, the Bill puts their life chances front and centre. We have started that reform already, piloting new financial support for kinship carers and investing over £500 million into family help and child protection in the next financial year alone. This a Bill that protects c…
The Government failed to listen to the Children’s Commissioner, who warned children will spend longer in failing schools; to Katharine Birbalsingh, who called the Bill’s impact on vulnerable children ‘seismic’; to the former chief inspector of Ofsted, who described it as a ‘many-pronged assault on school standards’; or to Lord Harris, who supported Labour at the last election and said the Bill harms ‘the most disadvantaged families.’ The Secretary of State should visit Wales — Labour in charge for 26 years, at the bottom of UK rankings in maths, English and science — because that is the blueprint for these reforms. This is a Bill of two halves: we agree with the safeguarding Part 1, but Part 2 is the policy equivalent of a wrecking ball, destroying a consensus built over two decades on what improves schools. We will never stop fighting it.I had hoped that, during the Commons stages of the Bill, the Government would listen to the vast number of respected voices from the education sector who have warned repeatedly that this ill thought through Bill is nothing short of a disaster for education standards in this country. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State failed to listen to the Children’s Commissioner, who warned that children will spend longer in failing schools because of this Bill; or Katharine Birbalsingh, who argued that if passed—[Interruption.] That is how they treat one of the best headteachers in this country. She warned that if passed, “the impact on our children, especially our most vulnerable, will be seismic.” The Secretary of State will not listen to the former chief inspector of Ofsted, who described the Bill as a “many-pronged assault on school standards”, or to Lord Harris, who supported the party at the last election and said that the Bill will only harm “the most disadvantaged families.” Even some of her own Back Benchers have asked the Secretary of State to think again. Why does she think she knows better? Instead of engaging constructively with that criticism, the approach from the Secretary of State has been to resort to personal attacks. In response to Amanda Spielman’s suggestion that there should be an analysis of the impacts of autonomy in schools before a legislation abolishing it is forced through the House of Commons, a Government source went on the record to denigrate a former senior public servant in the most personal of terms. Did the Secretary of State sign off that briefing? In her own opinion piece in the Telegraph today, the Secretary of State told me and the shadow team to get out of London. She appears not to have noticed the work of Star Academies, Delta Academies Trust, United Learning, Trinity and Inspiration Trust, among many others. Those are brilliant trusts that are changing the lives of young people and she so casually dismisses them. I have a suggestion…
- #131passedThird Reading of the bill — passed MPs voted to give the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill its third reading, approving it to be sent to the House of Lords. The bill passed 382–104.Ayes 382Noes 104