Committee stage in the Commons
The fourteenth sitting disposed of new clauses on VAT impact reporting, early intervention, mental health, SEND, home education, school governance, child sexual abuse, children's wellbeing measurement, smartphone bans, school discipline, curriculum review, parental access to teaching materials, kinship care, and summer-born SEND admissions.
TMopened the debateThe Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Stephen Morgan)Lab14:00 HansardAll schools — including academies — must already have regard to statutory attendance guidance and apply the exceptional circumstances test for leave of absence. There is very little evidence of misuse by academy heads, so New Clause 24 would not help. I invite withdrawal of New Clause 21.It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Betts. Before we adjourned, I was about to turn to new clause 24. I appreciate the concern of hon. Members in this matter and their desire for academies to follow rules on granting a leave of absence. One of the many ways in which schools encourage regular attendance is by making clear to parents the circumstances under which leave of absence can and cannot be granted. All schools, however, including academies, are already required to have regard to statutory attendance guidance and are expected to follow the rules on granting a leave of absence. Headteachers understand the responsibilities and know how important it is that children are in school. We have very little, if any, evidence of misuse of power in academies or big increases in the number of leaves of absence. All the indications are that academy heads follow the guidance and apply the exceptional circumstances test to relevant requests for leave, only granting them where it is met. We will continue to monitor this and support them to make school the best place to be for every child, but new clause 24 would not help us to do that. I invite the hon. Member to withdraw new clause 21.
Around my constituency we have seen independent schools close, blaming the VAT decision — which will push more pupils into already-oversubscribed state schools. New Clause 25 is not about the principle of the tax; it is about having a proper mechanism to monitor the impact on the state sector. At least 27 local authorities already have no spare places in certain year groups.I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Around my constituency, we have seen the closure of a couple of local independent schools, which have blamed the decision to introduce VAT. This will mean more people looking for places in local state schools that are already oversubscribed and, in turn, fewer people getting their first choice. New clause 25 is not about the principle of the tax, but about having a proper mechanism to monitor the impact on the state system, among other things. An importance piece published in The Times over the weekend found, based on freedom of information requests, that at least 27 local authorities have no spare school places in certain year groups, which will make it difficult to find places for children forced to move schools. Those are exactly the kinds of issues that we need to monitor very carefully, which is why this new clause calls for a report on the impact of the policy.
Something is missing from New Clause 25: Ministers must also look at the impact on the 100,000 children with special educational needs in private schools who do not have EHCPs and may be displaced into the state sector, adding to EHCP demand that is already in crisis.I rise to speak in support of new clause 25, which seeks to monitor the impact of VAT on private school fees. There is, however, something missing in the new clause, which I have urged Ministers repeatedly to look at. I hope that even if they will not publicly talk about it, they are looking privately at the impact of this policy on the 100,000 children with special educational needs in private schools who do not have education, health and care plans, and may be displaced into the state sector. That will have an impact on the state sector and the demand for EHCPs, which is already in crisis. When Ministers respond, I hope they might address that point.
Surely there is a fundamental difference between a projection of what is expected to happen and a report on what has actually happened? It is the latter that informs future policy by learning from experience.Does the Minister not accept that there is a fundamental difference between a projection of what is expected to happen and the reporting on what has actually happened? It is the latter that helps with future policy development by learning from experience.
- The annual school census publishes pupil numbers each year, including private school pupils. The Government estimate around 100 additional school closures over three years and 35,000 pupils moving to state schools long-term — less than 0.5% of state pupils. Local authorities already monitor place demand and we cannot definitively correlate pupil moves with the VAT change for other methodological reasons. The Government do not support the new clause.
I thank the right hon. Member for his interventions, and I ask him to be a bit more patient in the light of what I am going on to say. The Government’s impact assessment shows that we expect the number of private school closures to remain relatively low and that will be influenced by various factors, not just this VAT policy. Around 50 private schools, excluding independent special schools, close each year, and the Government estimate that 100 schools in total may close over the next three years in addition to the normal levels of turnover, after which closures will return to historical norms. The Government also estimate that, in the long-term steady state, 35,000 pupils are expected to move from private schools to UK state schools. That represents less than 0.5% of all state school pupils and the resultant impact on the state education system, as a whole, is therefore expected to be very small. Differences in local circumstances will mean that the impact of this policy will vary between parts of the UK. The number of private school pupils who might seek state-funded places will vary by geographical location, and that will interact with other local place pressures. In addition to the impact assessment, regular data is published by the Department for Education on pupil numbers and pupil moves. Data on the numbers of pupils in private schools is collected and published through the annual school census, and data on how many parents receive offers from their preferred schools in the normal admissions round is also collected from local authorities and published annually. We cannot definitively correlate pupil moves with the ending of the VAT exemption, as pupil numbers in schools fluctuate regularly for a number of reasons. Moreover, admissions decisions must strictly be made in accordance with a school’s published admissions criteria only. We should therefore be cautious of measures that would require parents to state the reason why they are choosing to move their chil…
- Is the Minister saying it will never be possible to know in reality what the effect of this tax change is?
I have been trying to exercise my best patience as the Minister entreated me to do. I think he is saying that it will never be possible to know, in reality, what the effect of this tax change is. Is that right?
- There is a census published each year that sets out those figures. On SEND, the vast majority of pupils with special needs are educated in mainstream schools where their needs are met; where a child does not have an EHCP and their needs could be met in the state sector, VAT applies. The Government does not support the new clause.
I know the right hon. Member will have been listening very carefully to what I said, and I made it very clear that there is a census published each year, which sets out those figures. We will work very closely with local authorities to understand the impact that the policy has. The hon. Member for Twickenham made a number of points on children with SEND. The vast majority of pupils who have special educational needs are educated in mainstream schools—whether they are state-maintained or private—where their needs are met. Where parents have chosen to send their child to a private school but their special educational needs could be met in the state sector—such as in England where children do not have an EHCP—VAT will apply to fees. The Government do not support the new clause for the reasons that I have outlined, and I ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw it.
- Without this new clause we will not be able to track numbers moving from private to state, and in particular the critical flow of those with undiagnosed or unofficially recognised special needs into the EHCP process. We will continue to monitor the policy and withdraw the clause.
I think it is clear from the Minister’s response that there are certain things we will not be able to find out in the absence of this new clause. We will not be able to see the numbers moving from the private sector to the state sector. In particular, as the hon. Member for Twickenham raised, we will not be able to see the critical flow of those with undiagnosed or unofficially recognised special needs, as they potentially move into the EHCP process and into state schools. Nonetheless, we will continue to monitor the impact of this policy over time, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 30 Publication of details of preventative care and family support (1) Every local authority, must within six months of the passing of this Act, publish details of all preventative care and family support available to people in their area. (2) Information published under subsection (1) must be made available— (a) on the authority’s website, and (b) in all public libraries in the authority’s area.”—(Munira Wilson.) This new clause would require all local authorities to publish information about preventative care and family support and to ensure it is freely available to people living in the area. Brought up, and read the First time.
- New Clause 30 would put into statute the duty on every local authority to publish details of their available preventive care and family support. Spending on preventive care is falling while late-intervention spend is rising — this simple measure would make that information freely and easily accessible to all families, as we have already legislated for the kinship care offer.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Betts. New clause 30 is a simple clause that would put into statute the duty on every local authority to publish the details of their available preventive care and family support, because we know that those are crucial forms of early intervention for children who may be at risk of going into care or where families are struggling. They can prevent things getting to crisis point for families and children. We know that a huge amount of good work is going on in local authorities up and down the country. Spending on preventive care is falling, while late intervention spend is rising, so it would be good practice for all local authorities to make that information freely and easily accessible to all families in the way that we have already legislated for, for instance, with the kinship care offer. I hope Ministers will seriously consider this simple new clause.
The statutory guidance 'Working Together to Safeguard Children' already requires local authorities to publish accessible information about services, including preventive services. The Government's reforms to family help, backed by over £500 million in the next financial year, plus £600 million for family services overall including 400-plus family hubs, mean a new duty is unnecessary. I ask the hon. Member for Twickenham to withdraw.I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for Twickenham in tabling new clause 30, and I agree that local authorities should be transparent about the services available to support children and families. However, our statutory guidance, “Working Together to Safeguard Children,” already requires local authorities and their statutory safeguarding partners to publish accessible information about the services that they offer children and families, including preventive services and family support. I welcome the reference that the hon. Member for Twickenham made to preventive services and family support. The Government are committed to rebalancing the children’s social care system towards earlier intervention and reversing the trend of unsustainable spending at the crisis end of the system. Ou reforms to family help and multi-agency child protection, backed by over £500 million of investment in the next financial year, will improve access to early intervention services and ensure that more children and families can access the help and support that they need at the earliest opportunity. I appreciate the intention of the hon. Member for North Herefordshire in tabling new clause 72, and I agree that local authorities should have a range of services available to support all children and young people and their families, but we have already planned investments of over £600 million for family services, across the spectrum of need—from universal services through to children’s social care interventions—in 2025-26. Through the family hubs and Start for Life programme, 75 of the most deprived local authorities in England have received funding to set up family hubs with integrated Start for Life services at their core. An additional 13 local authorities have been supported in opening family hubs through an earlier transformation fund. By joining up and enhancing services, family hubs provide a welcoming front door to vital support to improve health, education, and the wellbeing of…
The number of children in care is at an all-time high and outcomes remain poor. Between 2010–11 and 2022–23, spending on early help — family homes and children's centres — decreased by 44% while late-intervention spending increased by 57%. Unless we amend the Bill to go further, the system will remain heavily skewed towards crisis rather than prevention. New clause 72 would require local authorities to maintain a meaningful range of early-support services.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. I rise to speak in particular to new clause 72, which is on a similar topic to new clause 30, although arguably is not quite as simply drafted. The number of children in care is at an all-time high, and outcomes for those children remain poor. Evidence from the children’s charity Action for Children shows that children who have any interaction with social care are twice as likely to fail an English or maths GCSE than their peers. We need to change those outcomes, preferably through early intervention. We have spent much time in Committee discussing the Bill’s provisions on improving care for children who need to live with a foster family or in a residential home. It is important that the best possible support is available for those children who, for whatever reason, cannot live with their birth families. However, to significantly improve children’s social care, we need to radically reset the system with a much greater focus on helping families earlier on. I welcome the Ministers’ comments in our previous debates that the Government are committed to helping children growing up in our country to get the best start in life through wider investment in family hubs and parenting support. However, as drafted, the Bill does little to do this. Only one section of the Bill, which covers family group decision making, and which we discussed right at the start, directly addresses the need for more early intervention. Unless we amend the Bill to go further, we will continue to have a system heavily balanced towards working with families when they reach crisis point, rather than one that seeks to prevent problems before they start. As we have discussed, families in England face mounting pressures from the lingering effects of covid-19, the high cost of living and economic uncertainty. At the same time, there have been significant cuts to services to support families. I find this statistic shocking: between 2010-11 and 20…
- One in five under-16s has a probable mental health disorder — rising to 23% of 17–19-year-olds — and half of all lifetime mental health conditions arise before the age of 14. The Labour manifesto committed to a mental health professional in every secondary school, but only about half of secondaries and a quarter of primaries have access to an NHS mental health support team. New Clause 33 would place a duty on governing bodies to ensure every maintained and academy school has a dedicated graduate-level mental health practitioner on site, funded by central Government.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. There has been an explosion of mental health issues among our children and young people. The need and waiting lists for support were already high and growing prior to the covid pandemic, and the impact of lockdowns only made that worse. The demand for services—whether they are school-led, community-led or health service-led—is rising, and those services are struggling. The NHS estimates that one in five students under the age of 16 has a probable mental health disorder, and that figure rises to an astonishing 23% of students between the ages of 17 and 19, so we need urgent action. I note that the Labour party manifesto committed to having a mental health professional in every secondary school, and in recent months Ministers have intimated that they intend to expand existing mental health support teams established under the previous Government. The roll-out of mental health support teams is far from complete, however. I do not have the latest data as of today, but I know that it was previously projected that by the end of 2024, only about half of secondaries and a quarter of primaries would have access to a mental health support team. With half of all lifetime mental health conditions arising before the age of 14, early intervention is key. The new clause would place a duty on school governing bodies to ensure that every maintained and academy school in England, whether primary or secondary, has a dedicated mental health practitioner on site, with collaborative provision in place for smaller schools where it would perhaps not be sensible to have a dedicated person. That may particularly be the case in small schools. These dedicated practitioners would be trained to a graduate or postgraduate level through sources commissioned by NHS England. There is growing evidence linking mental wellbeing to academic success. Many schools are already working incredibly hard and stretching their limited resources to provide supp…
- The Government is committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and progress is being made. Already 44% of children have access to an NHS-funded mental health support team, expected to rise to about 50% by April. But it would be impractical to place the NHS-trained health service under school governance — mandating this responsibility would shift it from the NHS, which is better placed to manage workforce, training, pay, supervision and outcomes. We're also establishing Young Futures hubs and recruiting 8,500 new mental health staff. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss access to mental health practitioners in schools—something this Government obviously support. We know that having the right mental health and wellbeing provision in schools is key to ensuring that children and young people can achieve and thrive, and that access to early support can address problems before they escalate. Already, 44% of children and young people have access to an NHS-funded mental health support team in school, and we expect that to increase to around 50% by April. These teams include a new workforce of education mental health practitioners with qualifications earned through an NHS-commissioned course, as the hon. Member for Twickenham has previously referenced. However, that is still not enough, and I want to reassure the hon. Lady that outside of this Bill, the Government are committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and that progress is being made to achieve this. The Government are clear that it would be impractical for schools to pay for and oversee NHS-trained mental health practitioners, especially when workforce recruitment, training, pay and conditions, important clinical supervision arrangements, continuous professional development and established systems for reporting and evaluating outcomes already exist within the NHS. This new clause would not add to the provision of mental health professionals, but would in practice switch the responsibility for an NHS-trained health service from the NHS to schools. Mandating this responsibility for schools would add a further unnecessary burden on them, as the health sector is better placed to make arrangements for education mental health practitioners in school.
- The Minister said "every school" — will he clarify on the record that he means every primary and secondary school?
The Minister said “every school”. Will he clarify on the record that he means every primary and secondary school?
- Will he give us a timeline? This commitment has been made repeatedly, but we have heard nothing about when the services will actually be expanded.
Will he give us a timeline for that? This commitment has been made repeatedly, but we have heard nothing about when the services will be expanded.
- We are working through the mental health professional commitment at pace, alongside existing mental health support teams, Young Futures hubs and 8,500 new mental health staff. I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw.
I am very happy to take the hon. Lady’s intervention; she will know that the Bill delivers a range of measures that will support children’s wellbeing. The Government are obviously committed to improving mental health support specifically, which is why we introduced the Mental Health Bill last November, which delivers on our manifesto commitment to modernise mental health legislation more broadly. We are committed to providing access to specialist mental health professionals in every school, and we are working through that at pace, alongside the existing work of the mental health support teams. We will also be putting in place Young Futures hubs, including access to mental health support workers, and are recruiting an additional 8,500 new mental health staff members to treat children and adults. With that in mind, and with my assurance that we will deliver on our important manifesto commitment, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw her new clause.
- I wish to press the new clause to a vote.
I wish to press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
- The national tutoring programme helped boost attainment, confidence and school attendance, but its funding ran out in July. New Clause 52 would introduce a tutoring guarantee so that every disadvantaged pupil who has fallen behind gets the extra support they deserve.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause seeks to introduce a tutoring guarantee so that every disadvantaged pupil who may have fallen behind gets the extra support they absolutely deserve. Members across the House will recall that on the back of covid, we had the national tutoring programme, which, according to all evidence, despite being beset with all sorts of challenges when it was rolled out, helped to boost attainment, confidence and school attendance. Sadly, the money for the national tutoring programme and the 16 to 19 tutoring fund ran out in July of last year.
- Schools are best placed to understand their pupils' needs and can direct pupil premium funding to tutoring if they choose. The Department has published guidance based on evidence from the national tutoring programme. A statutory guarantee is not needed — I ask the hon. Member to withdraw.
I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern, and I thank her for raising this issue. We believe that schools are best placed to understand the needs of their pupils and should be able to choose from a range of options to best suit those needs, with tutoring being one option, but not the only one. Although the national tutoring programme ended on 31 August 2024, schools can continue to provide tutoring through the use of their pupil premium and other school funds. The pupil premium is funding to support the educational outcomes of disadvantaged pupils, and schools can direct spending where they think the need and impact is greatest. The Department for Education has already published guidance, based on evidence gathered through the national tutoring programme, on how to plan and deliver tutoring to pupils to support schools that wish to use this option. Pupil premium guidance sets out approaches, including tutoring, that can be used to support disadvantaged pupils, including those in the groups identified in the new clause. With that in mind, I kindly ask the hon. Member for Twickenham to withdraw the clause.
- The SEND system is in absolute crisis. Spending on high needs has trebled since 2015 yet only 8% of SEND pupils meet expected standards at the end of primary school. New Clause 36 would establish a dedicated national body for SEND with three functions: national coordination of standards; targeted support for children with very high needs — similar to NHS highly specialised commissioning for rare conditions, eliminating the postcode lottery; and funding advice to local authorities based on current rather than historic spend.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. We all know across this House that the special educational needs system is in absolute crisis across the country. Ministers have recognised the need for reform on multiple occasions. We have been assured that Ministers are working on it, and I have no doubt that they are working incredibly hard. New clause 36 provides them with a first step on that road to reform. The new clause would establish a new dedicated national body for SEND, which would act as a champion for children with complex needs. It would also ensure that standards are being met across the country and that children are receiving the tailored support they need. We know that spending on high needs has trebled since 2015, but as the schools Ministers herself has pointed out on a number of occasions, educational outcomes for SEND pupils have remained stagnant, with only 8% meeting expected standards at the end of primary school. The proposed body in the new clause would have three functions: national standards for SEND provision, ensuring consistent and equitable support for children across all the regions; supporting the delivery of SEND support for children with very high needs, providing targeted assistance to those requiring intensive support; and advising on funding for local authorities, offering guidance based on current need—[Interruption.]
- This national SEND body would ensure consistency in standards across the country and drive continuous improvement. The previous Conservative Education Secretary herself described the SEND system as 'lose, lose, lose'. One of the body's key functions would be ensuring that when a local authority encounters a child with very, very complex needs — needs that can put enormous pressure on its high-needs block — funding is available through a central pot so the burden does not fall entirely on one council.
I will pick up where I left off, on the third of the three key functions that this national SEND body would have. Those functions are advising on funding for local authorities, offering guidance based on current need and moving away from outdated spending models. The second function provides families and local authorities with the assurance they need that, when a child with very high needs is identified, funding for those needs is available and can be met through a central pot. When I am asked about that, I liken it to highly specialised NHS commissioning for rare conditions. It would eliminate the postcode lottery for families and the funding risk for local authorities; when a local authority comes across a child who has very, very complex needs and requires support, it can put a big pressure on its high-needs block. This body would ensure consistency in standards across the country and drive continuous improvement. It is an important piece of the puzzle in reforming a SEND system that was described as “lose, lose, lose” by the previous Conservative Education Secretary, Gillian Keegan.
- We do not believe the SEND system needs another body adding to its bureaucracy. The Children and Families Act 2014 already requires local authorities to work with partners including parents to develop local offers, recognising differing local circumstances. Decisions about provision for individual children under EHC plans are rightly made by the local authority, which knows its schools and settings. The Government keeps the funding formula under review with stakeholder input — no new national body is required. I kindly request withdrawal.
I thank the hon. Lady for raising the issue. As she knows, we are absolutely aware of the challenges in the SEND system and how urgently we need to address them, but, as I know she appreciates, these are complex issues and need a considered approach to deliver sustainable change. We do not believe that the SEND system needs another body that would add to the bureaucracy in the system. The focus is on making the system less bureaucratic and getting support to children and young people who need it quickly and efficiently. The Children and Families Act 2014 requires local authorities to work with a wide range of partners, including schools, colleges, health and, crucially, parents and young people, to develop their local offer of services and provision for special educational needs and disabilities. That recognises the differing circumstances of each local area and places decision making with the local authority. Crucially, decisions about provision for individual children and young people with statutory education, health and care plans are currently made by the local authority, which will know its schools, colleges and settings and the provision that they can offer in a way that a national body could not. I absolutely recognise the challenges of supporting children with very high needs, particularly those who require highly specialist provision. Local authorities have statutory responsibilities to make joint commissioning arrangements about education, health and care provision for all children and young people who have special educational needs or a disability in the local authority’s area. We do not believe that a new body is required to support local authorities to deliver on those duties. The Government keep the funding formula and other arrangements that the Department uses to allocate funding for children and young people with SEND under review, and it is important that there is a fair education funding system that directs funding where it is needed. The input of…
- I shall disappoint the Minister: I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
I shall disappoint the Minister: I would like to press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Home-educated children currently have extremely limited, expensive routes to sit national examinations — commercial providers only, limited space, and particular barriers for those with SEND. New Clause 37 would ensure all home-educated children can access and sit national examinations to prepare for further education and work.I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Betts. Home education is a choice taken by parents for a number of different reasons, as we have previously heard when debating this Bill. However, just because a parent chooses to educate their child at home and not take up a local authority school place, it should not mean that their child cannot access the examination system. At present, access to examinations for home-educated children is extremely limited, as there are only commercial providers in that space, which means that it becomes very expensive for parents. Examination space is often limited, especially for those with SEND. This new clause would ensure that all children can access and sit national examinations in order to prepare for life in further education and the world of work. In the interests of time, I will keep my remarks brief. I look forward to hearing from the Minister.
- Parents who choose to home educate assume full responsibility for their child's education, including planning in advance how to access examinations. The Bill already creates a new duty on local authorities to provide advice and information, including on navigating the exam system, to all home-educating families who request it. Local authorities retain discretion to go further and contribute towards examination costs. I ask withdrawal.
The new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Twickenham, seeks to create a duty for local authorities to make provision for children who are eligible to be included on the children not in school registers to sit any relevant national examination should a parent request that, and “to provide financial assistance to enable the child to sit” such examinations. Electing to home educate is not an easy decision, and home educating children is a massive undertaking. I applaud those parents who work tremendously hard to do so. However, parents who choose to home educate assume full responsibility for the education of their child, and our guidance is clear on that. The choice to home educate should be an informed one, with full awareness of potential challenges and the associated costs. That includes considering and planning in advance how to access examinations and qualifications for the child, including making inquiries with local centres as early as possible. To assist with that, the Joint Council for Qualifications publishes a list of centres that are available to private candidates to take their examinations. Parents can also contact exam boards, which may be able to direct them to a centre where their child can sit exams. The Bill introduces a duty on all English local authorities to provide support in the form of advice and information to all eligible families who request it. For the first time that creates an established baseline of support to ensure that wherever home educating families live, they have access to a reliable level of support from their local authority. Within that duty, I expect local authorities, when requested, to provide advice and information to private candidates about how to access and navigate the examination system. Local authorities retain discretion to provide further support above that baseline to families in their local area if they choose to do so. Some may choose to contribute towards the cost of examinations for families in their area.…
- School governor vacancies hit a six-year high of 20,000 in 2022. Last year, 76% of schools found it difficult to recruit governors, 44% of boards had two or more vacancies, and 30% of governors considered resigning because of workload. Since the Education and Inspections Act 2006 increased school autonomy, Ofsted has identified that the growing complexity of the role is a key factor in schools struggling to achieve a 'good' rating. New Clause 38 would require the Secretary of State to consult on the structures of governance for local authority and academy schools.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I move this new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Hazel Grove (Lisa Smart), who is herself a school governor, to highlight the severe shortage of school governors and the increasing responsibilities they face. The recruitment of governors has become increasingly difficult. Indeed, the National Governance Association estimates that in 2022 vacancies hit a six-year high at 20,000. Its latest report last year revealed that 76% of schools found it difficult to recruit governors, while 44% of boards had two or more vacancies, up from 33% three years ago. Moreover, 30% of governors considered resigning because of an inability to balance their governance responsibilities with their jobs. Evidence shows that the responsibilities of school governors have significantly increased over time, and Ofsted said that since schools’ autonomy increased, starting with the Education and Inspections Act 2006, the role has become more important but also more complex. Historically, school governors provided formal oversight, but they are now also expected to ensure regular performance reviews and financial oversight, and to hold school leadership accountable. The position has become increasingly professionalised, and Ofsted has identified that growth in responsibility as a key factor in many schools struggling to achieve a good or higher rating. That is largely because governors fail to focus on holding school leadership accountable, and have that split responsibility with other aspects of the role. The new clause seeks to probe that issue more, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.
- The Government deeply values our incredible volunteer governor force and recognises the increasingly challenging environment they work in. We already provide training and support through organisations such as the National Governance Association. There are several existing mechanisms, including Ofsted inspections and DfE reviews, that assess governance effectiveness. The Government is committed to supporting governors without adding further statutory burdens at this time. I ask withdrawal.
I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss governance structures in schools and academies. I sincerely thank the incredible volunteer force, which is a vital part of our system. I have such admiration for those in our communities who step up and invest their precious time and energy in our schools and young people. Governors and trustees work tirelessly in the interests of pupils and students in what we recognise is an often challenging environment. We really do owe them a debt of thanks.
- New Clause 39 fulfils the second recommendation of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse by establishing a Child Protection Authority for England — an arm's-length body on a par with the National Crime Agency — to improve practice, advise Government, inspect institutions and monitor implementation of the inquiry's 20 recommendations. The Bill already focuses on safeguards and child protection measures. If the Government genuinely supports the recommendations, why is it not using this legislative opportunity?
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I rise to speak to new clause 39, in my name and those of a number of my hon. Friends, which seeks to fulfil the second recommendation of the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse by establishing a child protection authority in England, which would be an arm’s length body of the Government on a par with organisations such as the National Crime Agency. As the inquiry set out, its role would be to “improve practice in child protection by institutions, including statutory agencies;…provide advice to government in relation to policy and reform to improve child protection, including through the publication of regular reports to Parliament and making recommendations; and…inspect institutions as it considers necessary.” I recently met Professor Jay and a member of the panel who was involved in that review, and they felt that there are certain gaps in the inspection regime across the country, so having this overarching national body with a focus on child protection is a really important recommendation and step forward. Indeed, it was the report’s second recommendation. The child protection authority would monitor the implementation of the inquiry’s recommendations. I am very grateful that the Government have already committed to implementing the recommendations, but I gently say to Ministers that this Bill, which we have spent several weeks going through in detail, already focuses on a number of safeguards and child protection measures. One of the many reasons that the previous Government gave for not implementing some of the recommendations was a lack of legislative time, which I struggle to understand given the number of times the House rose early in the previous Parliament. Given that the IICSA recommendation requires legislation and we are considering a very relevant Bill, I am not entirely sure that the Government are committed to implementing it as they are not legislating for a child protection authority. Wh…
- The Government is focused on delivering the change and justice victims deserve. The Home Secretary has outlined a mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse, grooming as an aggravating factor and a new policing performance framework. Before Easter, the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward all 20 IICSA recommendations. A cross-government ministerial group and a new victims and survivors panel are already working through them. I urge withdrawal of the new clause.
As the Prime Minister has made clear, we are focused on delivering the change and justice that victims deserve. As I set out earlier in response to new clause 15, on 6 January, the Home Secretary outlined in Parliament the commitments to introduce a mandatory duty for those engaging with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, making grooming an aggravating factor to toughen up sentencing, and introducing a new performance framework for policing. On 16 January, the Home Secretary made a further statement to the House that before Easter, the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations from the final Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse report. Four were for the Home Office, including on disclosure and barring, and I know that work is already under way on those. As the Home Secretary stated, a cross-Government ministerial group is considering and working through the remaining recommendations, and that group will be supported by a new victims and survivors panel. Again, as I mentioned, the Government will also be implementing all the remaining recommendations in IICSA’s separate stand-alone report on grooming gangs from February 2022, and as part of that we will update key Department for Education guidance. This landmark Bill will put in place a package of support to drive high and rising standards throughout our education and care systems, so that every child can achieve and thrive. It will protect children at risk of abuse and help to stop vulnerable children falling through cracks in service. I therefore urge hon. Members to support the Bill and the measures, and to withdraw the new clause.
- I am still at a loss to understand why, if the Government supports the recommendations, it is not using this legislative opportunity. I will press the new clause to a vote.
I am still at a loss to understand why, if the Government support the recommendations, they are not using this legislative opportunity. I will therefore press the new clause to a vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
- England's young people have the lowest wellbeing in Europe and are in the bottom 5% worldwide according to OECD PISA. Data on children's wellbeing is fragmented across the NHS, schools and local authorities. New Clause 42 would require a national wellbeing measurement programme — giving children a voice, enabling progress tracking, supporting local service planning and identifying groups struggling most.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 42 would impose a requirement on the Secretary of State to introduce a national wellbeing measurement programme for children and young people throughout England. I set out the need and the case for mental health support provision during our debate on new clause 33, and I pay tribute to #BeeWell and Pro Bono Economics, which have done a lot of work on the national wellbeing measurement. As we heard from witnesses in oral evidence a few weeks ago, despite having the word “wellbeing” in the Bill’s title, the legislation lacks measures that will improve the wellbeing of this country’s children and young people. England’s young people have the lowest level of wellbeing in Europe and are in the bottom 5% worldwide, according to the OECD’s programme for international student assessment survey. During our oral evidence sessions, Anne Longfield, Dr Carol Homden from Coram and Mark Russell from the Children’s Society all made the case for the systematic national measurement of children and young people’s wellbeing. Many of us are well aware that data on children’s wellbeing and mental health is fragmented across the NHS, schools and local authorities. Indeed, in the last Parliament, I sought to introduce a private Member’s Bill to address that gap, with regular annual reporting to Parliament on mental health and wellbeing data. Sadly, it was rejected by the Conservative Government at the time and talked out. On the other hand, and given the Minister’s already stated commitment to improving the mental health of our children and young people, I hope that the Labour Government will take the opportunity to introduce a national wellbeing measurement to focus efforts and provide a measurable standard from which we can mark progress. That would give all children and young people a voice on the issues that matter to their mental health and wellbeing, allow regular tracking of national progress, support detailed service…
- A wide range of data on children's wellbeing is already collected — ONS, DfE parent and pupil panels, the NHS mental health disorders survey and the Children's Society 'Good Childhood Report'. We are not convinced the benefits of a mandatory national programme would outweigh the burden on schools or limit their ability to choose tools suited to their cohorts. If a case is made, a voluntary programme could likely be introduced without primary legislation. I invite withdrawal.
New clause 42 is intended to require the establishment of a national children and young people’s wellbeing measurement programme. The Government are committed to improving the wellbeing of children and young people. Alongside improving health outcomes, we will break down barriers to opportunities, supporting all children to achieve and thrive. We know that elements of thriving, such as positive school belonging and childhood physical and mental wellbeing, are associated with academic attendance and the development of key life skills. The Bill, and our plan for change, will help us to achieve that. We acknowledge the value of understanding wellbeing. A wide range of data on children and young people’s wellbeing is already collected nationally to inform policy development. That includes DFE and Government-funded surveys such as the Office for National Statistics data on children’s wellbeing; the DFE parent and pupil voice panel surveys and recent national behaviour survey reports; the Department of Health-funded survey of the prevalence of mental health disorders, which is currently paused; and the health behaviours of school-aged children study, which is currently seeking funding. Surveys also include the Children’s Society “Good Childhood Report” and international data from PISA.
- There have been four waves of the NHS children and young people's mental ill-health prevalence survey — an invaluable resource providing annual data comparable across countries. There appears to be no current commitment to a fifth wave. Will the Minister join me in strongly encouraging colleagues at DHSC to maintain that data series, given how incredibly important it is?
There have now been four waves of updates from the children and young people’s mental ill health prevalence survey conducted by the NHS. That invaluable resource has provided annual data and enabled us to look at ourselves against other countries, although the data are not perfectly comparable. I gather that there is no current commitment to wave five. I know the Department of Health and Social Care said that it would keep an open mind, but will the Minister join me in strongly encouraging his colleagues at the Department to maintain that data series, because it is incredibly important?
- I will certainly take that away — I am happy to explore it further with DHSC colleagues. We encourage schools to measure pupil wellbeing and continue to engage with them on measurement approaches, but we do not currently have plans for a standardised national programme and invite withdrawal.
I will certainly take away that point. I know that the right hon. Member cares passionately about the wellbeing of children and young people, and I am happy to explore that further. We know that many good schools and local areas already measure pupil wellbeing to inform local action. The Department encourages that, with identifying need and monitoring impact being one principle of an effective whole-school approach to mental health and wellbeing. Although we do not currently have plans to introduce a standardised national wellbeing measurement programme, we continue to engage with schools to increase the understanding of wellbeing measurement approaches and impact. It is not clear that the benefits of a national programme would outweigh the burdens on schools, or the reduction in their ability to select tools to suit their cohorts. We would also need to consider the potential effect of a national measure on school accountability. Should the case for a national measure be made, there is likely to be scope to introduce the kind of voluntary participation programme envisaged in the new clause without recourse to primary legislation. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member for Twickenham to withdraw the new clause.
- I wish to press the new clause.
I wish to press the new clause. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
- A quarter of UK three and four-year-olds own a smartphone; by the end of primary school, four in five children have one. The data is terrifying: smartphone-era children show an explosion in anxiety and mental health problems focused almost entirely on young people, not adults — a pattern replicated across the western world regardless of domestic politics. The earlier a person gets a phone, the worse their adult mental health. Two thirds of 15-year-olds are distracted by digital devices in most or every maths class, equivalent to losing three-quarters of a year's education. Guidance alone is not working — only one in ten schools has a full start-to-finish ban. New Clause 48 would put a statutory ban into law, giving schools the clout they need, with school leaders retaining discretion on exemptions for children with medical or SEND needs.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. When I was on the Science and Technology Committee in 2018, I got us to do a report on screen time, social media and children’s mental health. Even then the evidence was alarming; now it is absolutely terrifying. Children are now given smartphones at a very early age. A quarter of the UK’s three and four-year-olds own a smartphone, and by the end of primary school, four out of five kids have one. Over the past decade, there has been an explosion in mental health problems among young people all over the world. Over the exact same period, smartphones and social media became dominant in children’s lives. The growth in anxiety and mental health problems that we are seeing is focused almost entirely in young people, not older people. There are many channels through which smartphones and social media cause problems for children. First, they displace time in the real world with friends. US data shows that prior to 2012, children spent more than two hours a day with friends. By 2019, that had halved. The proportion of kids feeling lonely and isolated at school has exploded all over the developed world. The invention of infinite-scroll social media has always reminded me of the famous social science experiment with the bottomless soup bowl. In this experiment, people were invited to eat from a soup bowl that was, unbeknownst to them, invisibly refilled from below. The constant refilling made people eat nearly twice as much as they would with a normal bowl—in some cases absurd amounts of soup. This is not just about a time sink; there is also the lack of sleep. Kids are tired in school. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder has increased massively, and concentration is impaired. This is a feature, not a bug. Apps are designed to be addictive and drip-feed the user dopamine. The same problems are happening not just in the English-speaking world, but in the Nordic nations and all across western Europe. Alternative explana…
- Banning smartphones in schools will not in itself tackle the problems outlined — a recently published nationwide study found no statistically significant difference in outcomes between schools with and without bans because children's total device time does not change. A much more holistic approach is needed.
The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case for banning smartphones in schools, but does he agree that banning smartphones in schools will not, in and of itself, tackle the problems that he has articulated? A recently published study, the first proper nationwide study of its type, shows that banning smartphones in school does not generate any statistical differences in various outcomes, because there is no difference in the amount of time that children are spending on their devices. Although there are strong arguments for banning them in school—and I recognise that there is a strong call for that from parents, teachers and, indeed, many students—a much more holistic approach is needed to tackle the harms that he has outlined.
- That study was sensible but could never show statistical significance with only 30 schools and 1,200 pupils — it cannot detect the powerful effects visible in natural experiments like Spain's province-wide policy change. And yes, a school ban is not the only thing needed, but it is the first and most achievable step.
The hon. Lady makes a thoughtful point. There is a fantastic meta-analysis published by the London School of Economics and the 5Rights Foundation of all the different studies that have been done on this around Europe. The hon. Lady referred to a specific study, which I hope to speak to the authors about. It is a good study, and perfectly sensible, but the issue is that it cannot find anything statistically significant because it looked at only 30 schools, with a sample size of about 1,200 pupils. It does not look at any natural experiments either, so it does not look at schools that are changing their policies. Where we have good RCT-like evidence, like in the great study in Spain, where they looked at a province that changed its policy wholesale, we can see from those natural experiments the really powerful effects of in-school policies. I agree with the hon. Lady that this is not the only thing that we should do. The study she mentioned was not wrong; it just could never show us the things that people are interested in. Indeed, there is plenty of other evidence out there in these meta-analyses, and from Jonathan Haidt’s website, of really powerful in-school effects. A study in the US shows that a class time-only rule does not give teachers as much benefit as they might expect. Research from the National Education Association found that 73% of teachers in schools that allow phone use between classes find that phones are disruptive during classes. The same is true here. The Department for Education’s national behaviour survey, published in April 2024, found that 35% of secondary school teachers reported mobile phones being used during lessons without permission. The problem is more pronounced for older children, unsurprisingly. Some 46% of pupils in years 10 to 11 reported mobile phones being used when they should not have been during “most or all” lessons. That is nearly half of pupils in most or all lessons reporting disruption, so the problem is absolutely there…
Addictive screen time is partly a product of the collapse of alternatives — no national play strategy since 2008, the hollowing out of Sure Start centres and children's centres. We also need greater clarity distinguishing a mobile telephone from a smartphone: the former enables SMS and voice calls; the latter carries addictive social media and apps. The new clause as drafted risks conflating the two.I have some sympathy with the point that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has made about the addictive quality of screen time. I also draw attention to the fact that the addictive nature of screen time is obviously a result of technology, but it is also due to a lack of competition from other uses of a child’s time. As such, it still staggers me that the first debate in eight years on playgrounds took place only because I secured it. The Conservative Government did not call a debate on playgrounds in their 14 years in government, and the only strategy ever on national play was launched by Ed Balls and Andy Burnham in 2008, with £230 million made available. Several years later, the coalition Government drew a red line through that strategy. We have also seen a hollowing out of children’s centres and Sure Start centres—really, of the whole fabric of what a child’s early developmental years could be. The places where parents could get support—not just to be parents alongside each other, but to raise their children and help them to develop—have all been hacked away. We need to look at children’s wellbeing in that context. I have reservations about the hon. Member’s proposal, partly because I think we need a clearer distinction between a mobile telephone and a smartphone. As somebody who was born in the 1980s and grew up in the 1990s, I see mobile telephones as typically restricted to SMS—I think that is what the kids call it these days—voice calls and maybe an alarm. A smartphone is something far more advanced, which has destructive social media, addictive apps, games and the like. Greater clarity about the distinction between mobile phones and smartphones might be helpful as we navigate this debate. It was interesting to hear the Conservative spokesperson call for collective action. I am always a fan of that, and I encourage him to continue down that path. I am happy to have a cup of coffee with him as we discuss it.
- We want central Government to take the heat for schools on this issue — both to make implementation easier for schools and to enable a proper national roll-out as other European countries are doing.
I anticipated that the hon. Member would say something of the sort. His argument is perfectly reasonable, and I tried to answer that exact point in my speech. We think that aspects of the Bill are too micro-managing, but we want central Government to take the heat for schools on this issue. That is both to make it easier for schools and, as the hon. Member for Twickenham said, because there should be a proper plan to roll this out at scale, as is happening in other countries in Europe.
- I have finally concluded we probably need to move toward a statutory ban — partly because heads come under enormous pressure from parents and a legal requirement would give them the clout they need, and because the Government would then have to resource implementation. A head in my constituency wants to implement a ban but cannot afford the £20,000 for lockers or Yondr pouches. Crucially, subsection (2) of New Clause 48 provides proper exemptions for young carers and children with health conditions monitored via apps — school leaders know their children best.
I come at this new clause first and foremost as a parent before I look at it as an MP. Looking at it with both hats on, though, I have long supported the previous Government’s guidance to schools to try to ban mobile phones during the school day. For a long time, I have needed convincing that a legislative ban was required, but I have finally concluded that we probably need to move towards one, partly for the reasons that the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston outlined. Some heads and school staff come under a lot of pressure from parents to allow the use of phones during the school day, but if this were a statutory requirement, the Government would have to provide the support needed to implement it. Just this week, I talked to the headteacher of a secondary school in my constituency. He is very keen to implement a ban on phones during the school day, and he is trying, but kids are getting their phones out at various times and not staying off them. It is a fairly new school, but for some reason it was built without lockers, so there are no lockers. He has looked into purchasing lockers or Yondr pouches—the phone pouches that I believe the Irish Government have bought wholesale for every school in Ireland—and he said that that would cost him about £20,000, which he did not have in his budget. Putting the ban into statute would give headteachers and teaching staff the clout they need with parents who particularly want their children to have their phones during the school day, and the Government would need to resource the ban so that schools could implement it. I draw Members’ attention to subsection (2) of the new clause, which deals with exemptions, because that is a very important point. Proper exemptions are important for young carers or children with health conditions that need monitoring via apps. School leaders and teachers know their children best, and they know which children need exemptions. I would be interested to know what the consequences would…
- The vast majority of online harm does not happen at school, and a ban will not reduce total screen time or solve the chronic effects on attention span and eyesight. But rules still matter for classroom behaviour and, crucially, for teacher recruitment and retention. In 2019 I decided not to put a national rule in place — I was never 100% certain it was the right call. In 2024 we introduced non-statutory guidance including breaks. The world has continued to change since then, and my worries have only deepened. A national rule would set a firm norm: not a ban on carrying a phone to school, not a ban on phones for children with SEND or medical needs — those decisions remain with schools — but a clear baseline for the whole school day including breaks.
I rise to speak in favour of the new clause. Unusually, I will start by saying what the new clause will not do, and the limits of the change it proposes. The truth is that the vast majority of online harm does not happen at school. Banning phones or social media in school will not necessarily reduce the total amount of time that children spend online or address schools’ worries about kids being online, such as the concern about the increasing number of children who turn up to school having not slept sufficiently to be ready for the day. Nor does the new clause address the wider problems—not day to day, but more chronic—with attention span and eyesight. We have recently heard a lot about the greater prevalence of myopia. Rules in this area are still important, however, and behaviour in school is crucial for teacher recruitment and, particularly, retention. Three big things have changed in schools in the last few years. The first is an attitudinal shift that came about around the time of covid, and that it will take us some years to understand. The other two are vapes and phones. It cannot be overstated how much those three things affect what happens in a school, the feel of the school and what teachers and headteachers report back. The first thing that schoolchildren need for learning is to be able to concentrate. There is good reason to believe that even when a child is not using a phone, the fact that it is in their pocket—that it could buzz, vibrate or whatever at any point—can distract them. I think it is an important principle that the entire school day, including break time and lunch time, should be reserved for what school is about: learning, developing and being with friends. The question, as always, is whether we leave that to individual schools or have a national rule, and the hon. Member for Bournemouth East was right to speak about the tension between the two. I confess that that is a question I have personally had to grapple with on more than one occasio…
- By using 'mobile phone' and 'smartphone' interchangeably we are confusing the debate. Parents want their children to be able to call them in an emergency; they do not want children carrying addictive apps. Clarifying the distinction would sharpen the policy.
That is not the point on which I am intervening. I was going to say that by using the language of mobile phone and smartphone interchangeably, we are confusing the debate. If our debate is confused, I am not sure how we can arrive at a certain policy. I called for agreement with the Government around national rules. I want to clarify that I did not mean on everything, but only on the things in the Bill that I think need national rules. I agree with the right hon. Member that that is what provides consistency.
- 'Smartphone' has no legal definition — it just means a phone with more functionality. Some features parents worry about are available on basic phones; some features on smartphones are perfectly benign. The definitional difficulty is real and the Australians are grappling with exactly the same problem in their social media ban.
The hon. Member is right about the difficulty with defining the term smartphone. People talk about a brick phone, a feature phone, a basic phone, a Nokia, a smartphone and an iPhone, but the truth is that there is no definition; smartphone is just a term. It originally came about when people did not want to use the brand name iPhone, because Samsung phones and other types of phone were available. It just means a smarter phone; it has more stuff on it. Some of the things that people worry about are not necessarily only available on smartphones. I looked recently at iMessage, and it is starting to look more like WhatsApp. Anything that can be used for a group chat has some of the issues that we find in schools that cover the teenage and sub-teenage years. There are other things that people can get on a smartphone but not on a Nokia that are perfectly benign. Some parents are quite keen for their kids to be able to look at the weather. Some are keen to be able to use the tracking device to follow their child, or for their child to be able to use the mapping device to find their way home, so I agree with the hon. Member.
- The clause uses 'mobile telephones' as a catch-all precisely because the distinction between devices is blurred. A child texting on a so-called dumbphone can be just as distracted as one on a smartphone. It is possible to legislate on that basis.
It is good to have this point of clarification. The clause uses the rather quaint phrase “mobile telephones” to capture everything, because the distinction between these devices is blurred. Among those who are interested in the smartphone issue, there is a separate debate about the use of dumbphones for things like walking to and from school, but there is no reason why even a dumbphone cannot cause massive distraction if it is out in class. A child could be texting somebody, for example, and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, the distinction between these things is blurred these days. That is why we have this catch-all term. It is clear, and it is possible to legislate on that basis, notwithstanding our other discussions outside the scope of this debate.
- Are we not getting a bit distracted? The new clause is about banning phones during the school day — not on the way to or from school when children might want to call their parents.
Are we not getting a bit distracted? The new clause is about banning things from the start of the first lesson to the end of the last, not on the way to or from school when children might want to call their parents.
- The hon. Lady is quite right. The key data point is the inflection in children's mental ill-health that comes before covid and mirrors trends in France, Germany and the United States regardless of which government was in power — this is a global western trend. An increasing prevalence of smartphones and social media coincides with an increase in mental ill health, and while correlation does not prove causation, we should take a precautionary approach just as we do with any product placed in children's hands. The Online Safety Act 2023 implementation, the private Member's Bill from the hon. Member for Whitehaven and Workington, the school ban and measures like Australia's — these are all parts of the response. The school phones ban makes a real difference and we should move to it now.
The hon. Lady is quite right. I was only going to speak about this for three minutes or so, but the hon. Gentleman tempted me into other areas. On the promise that he was making one last intervention, I indulged him, and I am grateful to him. In an earlier intervention on the Minister for School Standards, I mentioned the NHS mental health of children and young people survey, which shows us what has happened over time to children’s mental health. There is an inflection point and it comes, contrary to what most people believe, before the covid pandemic. That is the first critical data point to understand. The second critical data point is that when we look beyond that study at other countries’ studies, we see that none of them are perfectly comparable, but studies in countries such as Germany, France and the United States follow basically the same pattern. There is an increase in the prevalence of mental ill health conditions in all the published data that I have seen for other countries. Whatever people say about domestic politics, whichever party was in Government here and whatever they did, that cannot explain what happens in France or the United States. The fact is that there is a global trend, or at least a trend in the western world, of an increasing prevalence of mental ill health conditions among children.
The use of mobile phones in schools should be decided at school level, reflecting school values and involving the school community — including student councils and parent groups — in conversations about digital wellness. A survey of over 1,000 teachers found that 41% use smartphones as a teaching tool; 57% said class size reduction would improve behaviour far more than a blanket ban. The Birmingham study found no significant differences in academic performance or mental health between schools with and without bans.I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his comments. We have spent a great deal of time in Committee hearing from Opposition Members about autonomy: headteachers’ autonomy, school autonomy, and school leaders knowing exactly what is best for their pupils and communities. Subsection (2)(b) of the new clause states that the policy “is to be implemented as the relevant school leader considers appropriate”, but that means that the school leader could choose not to ban mobile phones for anybody in their school; there are exemptions, and they could decide that that is what they need. But that was not what I was going to talk about. The use of mobile phones in schools should be decided at school level. It should reflect school values, processes and procedures, and not be decided in a directive or legislation from Government. Deciding it at school level would allow for the reasonable use of phones and technology, and it would allow for a balanced approach to technology. It could involve the school community in a discussion about what the phones and technology are being used for—a simple ban would not do that—and could include conversations about digital wellness and promoting healthier relationships, both offline and online, and a healthy approach to using technology at school, in the workplace and in the wider world. If we banned kids from using phones in school, we probably should ban people in their offices and in meetings from using them, because they do not pay attention either. Given how often we look up and see people not even bothering, how on earth can children learn while using mobile phones and technology in a measured and supportive way? I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the Birmingham study from February, which was mentioned previously. It found that banning smartphones in schools did not directly improve student academic performance or mental health. However, that research indicated that excessive phone use correlates with negative outcomes, yet there…
- Does the hon. Lady have any concerns about the equity of using pupils' own smartphones as a teaching tool? What happens to children who do not have smartphones?
The hon. Lady talks about the use of pupils’ own smartphones as a teaching tool in class. Does she have any worries about the equity of that? What happens to the kids who do not have smartphones in those situations?
- That is a fair point — schools must be properly resourced with iPads and computers. But chatter and not sitting still are far greater sources of classroom disruption than phones, at 80% and 75% respectively, compared to 20% for unauthorised phone use. Schools need the autonomy to have that community conversation and to teach digital wellness for the future.
That is a good point. Although we have to resource our schools properly to ensure appropriate iPads and computers that can be used, we would not want the situation the hon. Member described to continue either. We must ensure that schools are resourced. We have talked about disruption in classrooms, and 20% of teachers said that the unauthorised use of mobile phones was one of the main causes. However, chatter and not sitting still accounted for 80% and 75% respectively, and disrespect to other pupils was much higher than the use of mobile phones. When asked whether a whole-school ban would improve learning, 18% felt that it would, but actually 57% felt that a class size reduction would improve behaviour much more. We need to give our schools the autonomy to have that conversation with their communities and to involve their students. We have student councils and we have parent groups, and we must involve them in the conversations on mobile phone use in schools so that we can teach digital wellness now and for the future.
Voting for this new clause would be voting to enable the banning of adults — including staff, parents and visitors — from using and carrying mobile phones in schools. Scrutinising legislation line by line is literally our job in this Committee.Call me a lawyer—that increasingly seems to be a term of abuse in this place—but I want to be clear that voting for this new clause would be voting to enable the banning of adults, including staff, parents and visitors, from using and carrying mobile phones in schools. I thought that scrutinising line by line was literally our job in this Committee.
- The Government's 'Mobile phones in schools' guidance already requires schools to prohibit use throughout the school day, including breaks and lunch. Even before that guidance, 97% of schools had some form of phone policy. New Clause 48 lacks the flexibility to accommodate individual needs such as a phone as an adaptation for a disabled child. We trust headteachers to develop a policy that works for their school community and ask withdrawal.
New clause 48 would prohibit the use and carrying of certain devices during the school day. I thank the shadow Minister and my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East, for Portsmouth North and for Derby North for their contributions, as well as the hon. Member for Twickenham and the right hon. Member for East Hampshire. I appreciate the thoughtfulness with which Members have contributed to the debate on the new clause. We recognise the negative impact that mobile phones can have on children’s learning. Every pupil deserves to learn in a safe, calm classroom, and we will always support our hard-working and dedicated teachers to make that happen. That is why the Government’s “Mobile phones in schools” guidance is already clear that schools should prohibit the use of mobile phones throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, break times and lunch time. It is for school leaders to develop and implement a policy, while ensuring that they adhere to the public sector equality duty and the Equality Act 2010. New clause 48 lacks the flexibility required to accommodate some individual needs, such as a mobile phone as an adaptation for a disabled child. We know that schools are already prohibiting the use of mobile phones, including through outright bans. Even before guidance was published, around 97% of all schools in England had policies restricting mobile phone use in some way. There are a range of ways in which a mobile phone-free school can be achieved. We trust headteachers to develop a mobile phone policy that works for their own schools and for the school community.
- The argument about technical drafting flaws does not hold water — the drafting captures students and allows school leaders to implement policy appropriately. The guidance is not working: only one in ten schools has a full start-to-finish ban and DfE's own National Behaviour Survey shows 46% of year 10 and 11 pupils report phones being used when they should not be 'in most or all lessons'. Across the US, the overwhelming majority of states already have or are moving toward a ban. This is the first step in tackling a massive national crisis and I will press to a Division.
We have had an important and interesting debate, and we have heard a mix of arguments—some better than others, I think. The argument about drafting does not hold water. Subsection (2)(a) talks about students, subsection (4) talks about pupils, and subsection (2)(b) would allow a policy to be implemented in a sensible way. If Members do not agree with the new clause, they can just say so, rather than find lawyerly arguments against it. However, there were some good points made. More than one thing can be a problem at a time, and this new clause is not the silver bullet. There are lots of problems with smartphone use outside of schools, as well as other things on top of that that we need to do. That is why I talked about this as a beachhead—as the first thing we should do. It is interesting that all over the world things are changing. In the US, the overwhelming majority of states either already have a ban or are on their way legislatively to getting one. The US is ground zero for a lot of these problems, and it is interesting that it is moving to take decisive action. I think we will, too. For Ministers, there will always be a load of people who want to come to them and say that, “It’s all very complicated—I have been working with the industry,” “It’s correlation not causation,” or, “We should just let be.” There are things in the Bill where the Opposition have been critical of the Government for being more directive than we think is appropriate for the subject. On this issue, however, we think the subject is so important. In this House, we now all talk constantly about the mental health crisis among young people—it is such a big thing. It seems to be pretty incontrovertible that one of the main causes of that is the rise of the smartphone-based childhood. This provision could be an important first step towards tackling that massive national crisis. I hope that at some point Ministers will think again about the provision when they have more time to reflect. The guida…
- What gets measured gets managed. We have far too little data on the state of discipline in our schools. New Clause 49 provides for an annual report locking in the National Behaviour Survey and creating wider regular reporting — because discipline is one of the top issues teachers raise and drives good people out of the profession. New Clause 51 would ensure that acts of violence against teachers are automatically reported to the police — not to criminalise children, but to log what is happening and reset expectations that violence against educators is never acceptable.
We have a run of new clauses here—49, 50 and 51—and I will speak about them at the appropriate moment. I will not move new clause 50 in the interests of time. During lockdown a lot of parents, including me, gained an even greater respect for the teaching profession, yet we do not treat teachers like other professionals. We do not expect doctors or lawyers to put up with the kind of abuse that is sadly still far too common for schoolteachers. The Bill does many things, some of them good, but as an editorial in the TES pointed out, it is strangely silent on discipline and the right of teachers and pupils to have a safe place to work. To fix that, we have tabled these new clauses, which can be taken together. The first concerns properly managing and measuring the situation. What gets measured gets managed, but at the moment we have far too little data on the state of discipline in our schools and in alternative provision. That is why new clause 49 provides for an annual report, and it locks in the current national behaviour survey, which is so important and creates wider and regular reporting of Government action on this subject. Endless polls show that it is one of the top issues facing teachers. It is one of the most important things to them, and we know that it drives good people out of this most valuable profession. New clause 50, which I will not move today, would create an annual report on alternative provision for exactly the same reason, as well as for reasons concerning achievement and behaviour in AP. I will speak about new clause 51 at the appropriate moment, but it is about encouraging Ministers to go further on the discipline agenda, which I know they want to do. It is so vital to academic achievement in our schools, but it is also vital to a decent childhood, to not having to live in fear and to an orderly society.
- The Department already publishes National Behaviour Survey data annually on gov.uk — New Clause 49 creates a redundancy. That said, I will take away the call to commit to continuing the NBS.
New clause 49 sets out a requirement to publish an annual report on the behaviour of pupils in mainstream state-funded schools, and I will explain why the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston should withdraw it. The Department for Education already publishes the data from the NBS—the National Behaviour Survey—in an annual report. That is publicly available on the gov.uk website.
- Will the Minister commit to continuing the National Behaviour Survey — as he says, so important?
This is a very positive moment. Will the Minister commit to continuing that survey, which is, as he says, so important?
- I will certainly take that point away. The NBS triangulates the views of professionals, children and parents to build a national picture over time. The Department will continue to use it to inform behaviour strategy and policy. I ask withdrawal of New Clause 49.
I will certainly take that point away. The NBS reports provide an accurate, timely and authoritative picture of behaviour across England. The surveys allow us to build up a national picture over time, and act as a signpost to what schools need. By triangulating the views of professionals, children and parents, Government officials can gain better understanding of behaviour and of what is needed to support teachers and school leaders in practice. My Department will continue to use data from the NBS to inform future strategy and policy improvements on behaviour in schools. Mr Betts, you will be pleased to hear that this is the last new clause that I expect to respond to. I conclude by thanking you and all the Chairs for expertly chairing the Committee; all Clerks and civil servants who have supported the smooth running of our proceedings; and all Committee members who have contributed so diligently to this landmark legislation. As a Government, we are determined to break down barriers to opportunity for every child in every part of the country. This Bill is one step further in our plan for change for children and families. New clause 49 creates a redundancy and we do not believe it is necessary to legislate on this issue. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston to withdraw the clause.
- Bullying affects one in five children each year, costs the economy an estimated £11 billion annually and has devastating long-term effects on mental health, qualifications and life chances — with children with SEND, those in poverty and young carers disproportionately affected. New Clause 70 would require anti-bullying leads in schools, systematic recording of incidents and anti-bullying training for teachers — a duty already in place in Northern Ireland.
New clause 70 concerns anti-bullying work in schools. Bullying is a serious and a widespread problem. Each year, one in five children report being bullied. It has devastating effects on children’s mental health, their sense of belonging and their ability to thrive. It is a leading cause of school refusal, failure to attend school and disruptive behaviour. Children who are afraid to attend school miss opportunities to learn and grow. Bullying creates long-term harm. Victims of bullying often suffer lasting consequences into adulthood, including poor mental health, unemployment and a lack of qualifications. People who are bullied may also struggle with relationships and lack life chances. Bullying has unequal effects; it affects different groups unequally. Some groups are significantly more at risk, including children with special educational needs and disabilities, those living in poverty and young carers. Bullying also costs the economy an estimated £11 billion annually due to its impact on education, health and productivity, so it is a serious problem. The new clause would require the appointment of anti-bullying leads in schools. Evidence shows that a whole-school approach is the most effective way to tackle bullying, but that requires co-ordination by a senior staff member. Appointing an anti-bullying lead potentially alongside and within existing roles such in safeguarding or pastoral support ensures a focused and effective strategy. It is important to record bullying. Systematically recording incidents helps schools to identify patterns, implement interventions and measure progress. This duty, which is already in place in Northern Ireland, can be streamlined with digital tools. Transparent reporting fosters trust, supports accountability and creates safer and more inclusive schools without burdening staff. It is also important to look at teacher training. Currently, there is no requirement for trainee teachers to receive anti-bullying training, and nearly half—…
- It is time to ensure that all acts and threats of violence against teachers are reported to the police. This is not about criminalising children — it is about logging incidents so that escalation can be prevented and expectations are reset. In Scotland, NASUWT members are taking industrial action precisely because teachers are being told their lessons are 'not fun or engaging enough' when they report abuse. People dedicating their lives to helping children should not be used as punch bags. If the Government will not support New Clause 51 as drafted, we hope they will bring forward their own version.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. This new clause is a continuation of the debate we were just having. It is time to ensure that all acts and threats of violence against teachers are reported to the police. It is very clear from the drafting of the clause that we are not looking to criminalise children, but we should not expect teachers to suck up abuse that we would never expect other professionals to. If we log what is going on, we have a chance of avoiding things that can escalate over time. At the moment in Scotland, members of NASUWT are taking industrial action because of the failure of authorities to create discipline. The unions say that teachers “report being told at debriefing meetings that their lessons are ‘not fun or engaging enough’” That is absolutely extraordinary. NASUWT notes: “A culture where there are no consequences for poor behaviour is not setting up pupils well for adult life and fails the employers’ duty of care towards its staff”. It also says: “The wholesale adoption of the restorative approach to pupil discipline has definitely been a problem”. Mike Corbett of NASUWT said: “You can’t offer a quiet chat and no serious consequences for this level of disruptive behaviour.” We find ourselves, on this matter, in total agreement with the teaching unions and their wise words on this subject. In England, a Channel 4 exposé sadly showed the incredible extent of the problem and why we need to do far more to address it. We want those who would lift their hands to a teacher and engage in an act of violence, intimidation or threat to know that it will absolutely be reported to the police. It is sometimes good to make a credible pre-commitment to things, and people need to know it is never acceptable to do those things. They need to know that there will be automatic consequences and that they should not expect that people will just turn the other cheek. People who are trying to help them—dedicating their lives to helping them—should…
- Any form of violence in school is completely and utterly unacceptable. Schools as employers already have a statutory duty under health and safety legislation to protect staff, and the National Police Chiefs' Council guidance — written with the DfE and Home Office — sets out when to involve the police. New Clause 51 would impose an additional administrative burden where appropriate provisions and guidance already exist. I invite withdrawal.
I agree with the sentiments behind the new clause. Any form of violence in school is completely and utterly unacceptable and should not be tolerated. By law, schools must have a behaviour policy. In the most serious cases, suspensions and permanent exclusion may be necessary to ensure that teachers and pupils are protected from disruption. Schools or trusts as employers already have a statutory duty, outlined in the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 and the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999, to protect the health, safety and wellbeing of school staff at work. Where violence is involved on school premises, schools should take immediate and appropriate action. Should the incident constitute a potential criminal offence, it is for the school as an employer to consider involving the police, having followed the advice contained in the “When to call the police” guidance for schools and colleges by the National Police Chiefs’ Council, written in partnership with the Department for Education and the Home Office. There are already appropriate provisions and guidance for schools to prevent and respond to violence on their premises. That includes guidance on when to involve the police, so the new clause is likely to impose an additional administrative burden on school leaders. Clearly, important points have been made, but, on the basis I have outlined, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw the clause.
- The Minister's sentiment is right — but logging actual acts of violence is an important resource for police and social services, and I will press to a vote.
I absolutely agree with the Minister’s sentiment—of course she wants only the right thing for pupils and teachers. However, I will push the new clause to a vote, because we want to think about how we can go further on all these things to create the safe workplace that both teachers and pupils deserve. In another part of the forest, there is an argument about non-crime hate incidents and logging them. The arguments made by the Government about logging them is that one thing leads to another. As I said before, we do not wish to criminalise children, but logging where actual acts of violence are taking place is an important resource for the police and other social services. We think that something along those lines would be useful, and I am keen to push this to a vote, but I know the Minister will think about everything extra that she can do to try to create a safe workplace. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
- The Government is currently reviewing the national curriculum, but legally Ministers do not have to follow independent advice — they could make whatever decision they wanted. New Clause 55 formalises that process for the first time, placing a proper legal framework around an incredibly powerful tool that has until now operated entirely on the assumption that everyone would behave reasonably.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Government are obviously reviewing the national curriculum at the moment. During our earlier debates in Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire pointed out that control of the national curriculum is an incredible power, yet, to date, it has operated really on precedent, custom, tradition and everyone being reasonable. This new clause aims to formalise that process a bit more. At the moment, of course, the Government are taking advice from an independent review—very sensibly—but, legally, they do not actually have to take account of that; they could make whatever decision they wanted. In another Bill—the Institute for Apprenticeships and Technical Education (Transfer of Functions etc) Bill—the Government are centralising control over a whole bunch of stuff about qualifications and standards. This new clause just sets up, for the first time, a proper process to formalise how the national curriculum is revised. It is an incredibly strong power and yet it is one that has operated—in one sense, nobly—on the assumption of everyone just behaving reasonably and people being “good chaps”, as it were, in the old parlance. This measure would put an actual formal legal process around such hugely important changes.
- The current system for reviewing the curriculum has stood the test of time and the ongoing independent review shows it works. Ministers are already required to consult and provide Parliament with appropriate scrutiny. New Clause 55 would add inflexibility and bureaucracy — requiring a second independent body after any review and positive rather than negative parliamentary resolutions — adding delays and uncertainty for teachers. I invite withdrawal.
The current system for reviewing the curriculum works well, as the ongoing independent curriculum and assessment review shows, and has stood the test of time for successive Governments. The legislation gives Ministers the flexibility to review and develop the curriculum in the most appropriate way for the circumstances of the time, while requiring them to consult, and to provide Parliament with appropriate levels of scrutiny. Requiring the creation of new organisations and processes is rarely the best way to improve outcomes. The proposed system would be inflexible and bureaucratic rather than helpful. New clause 55 would mean that, following any review of whether to change the national curriculum, such as through our curriculum and assessment review, the Secretary of State would have to set up another independent review to advise how to change the programmes of study. Also, by requiring a positive, rather than negative, resolution of changes, and of any changes beyond the review’s recommendations, this measure could add unnecessary delays and uncertainty for teachers about what was going to be changed in the curriculum and when. On that basis, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
- Parents have been denied access to very controversial RSE materials from private for-profit providers who hide behind copyright law, or require parents to sign agreements preventing them quoting from or discussing what they have seen — effectively killing public debate. New Clause 58 would put into statute the right to see materials used in teaching, cutting through copyright barriers. Whatever comes of the RSE consultation, parents should be allowed to know what their children are being taught — no secret lessons.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. Over recent years, we have been in an absolutely extraordinary situation. Very controversial materials from various third party private providers have been used in RSE—relationships and sex education—lessons, yet parents have been denied access to the materials that are being used to teach their children, even though it is them paying, as taxpayers, and it is their children who are being exposed to these materials. That is obviously unacceptable. Various private providers of this material, including for-profit companies, have tried to hide behind copyright law, or have tried to make parents sign agreements, such as that they can see the materials, but only on the strict conditions that they do not quote from them or talk about them, effectively crippling and ending public debate about them. Parents need to see, and to be able to act upon what they see, including discussing it in public and making formal complaints. That requires having a copy of the material and being able to refer to it openly. An important case brought by the campaign group “No Secret Lessons” may establish such rights, but, despite a hearing five months ago, we are still—strangely—awaiting a verdict in its case. I pay tribute to its work in trying to bring back some common sense here. New clause 58 seeks to put into statute the right to have access to the materials that are being used to educate our children about controversial subjects. That, itself, should not be a controversial idea. The intent is that this right, in primary legislation, would cut through the issues around copyright and prevent the industry from trying to stop public discussion that actually needs to happen. The context is that the Government’s response to the consultation on gender-questioning children and RSE is long overdue, and we look forward to hearing the outcome of those processes soon. I hope that the Minister may be able to say some more about when we can expect t…
- Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that parental access to teaching materials could have a chilling effect — a teacher told me a parent demanded to see materials simply because they cited Marcus Rashford as a social justice campaigner, which made the teacher reluctant to use that example in future? Would it not be better for teachers to be accountable to headteachers and governing bodies rather than directly to every parent?
I wish to speak briefly about the new clause, mainly to test the waters with the hon. Gentleman who tabled it. Does he, like me, have concerns that, if parents and carers are able to access teaching materials, they may meet with the teachers who drew up the materials and raise significant concerns, which may not always be well founded? For instance, a teacher I spoke with recently raised concerns about a parent who had demanded to see their teaching materials on the basis that they cited Marcus Rashford as an example of somebody campaigning for social justice, which the parent was deeply concerned about. The teacher raised with me their concern that the conversation with the parent had had a chilling or stifling effect on their willingness to cite Marcus Rashford as a social justice hero in the future. Would it not be a better way forward for teachers to be held accountable for their materials by the headteacher and the school’s governing body? That would protect parents or guardians from the minority of parents or carers who raise concerns based on unfounded reasons that have a wider impact on the teaching that is delivered.
- The problem is not schools — which are bound by FOI — but private for-profit providers inappropriately hiding behind copyright law. In a democracy, parents paying for their children's education have a right to see what is being taught. Does the hon. Member agree with that basic principle?
I am grateful to the hon. Member for giving way so that I can directly answer the question he posed to me. The problem is not schools, which are bound by freedom of information, but a bunch of private for-profit providers that are inappropriately hiding behind copyright law to deny people the right to even see what is being taught. Different people can have different opinions on what is being taught—that is reasonable in a democracy, and it is important that we have sensibly founded conversations and all those things—but does the hon. Member agree that, given that a parent is paying for their kid’s education, they should have the right to see what they are being taught?
- My concern remains: teachers should be free to educate critically and provide access to all kinds of information without feeling wary or diminished by any type of educational provider being made more accountable to every parent.
I welcome that clarification. I continue to have concerns, because whether or not somebody is paying for their child’s education—I would obviously wish that they were not paying—I still think it is important to have quality education and critical thinking and to potentially use inspirational figures and history to make points. That goes across all types of educational provider, so my concern remains. Thinking back to the conversation I had recently with a teacher, the last thing I want is for them to go into a classroom feeling wary or in any way diminished in their ability to freely and critically educate and provide children with access to all kinds of information, and not just narrow viewpoints.
- Parents are right to know what their children are taught and current routes exist — the national curriculum is published, schools must share curriculum information and RSE policy must be developed in consultation with parents including examples of resources. Ofsted reviews curriculum materials. New Clause 58 is a sledgehammer to crack a nut — there is no evidence of a widespread problem justifying the extra burden on schools. I urge withdrawal.
It is right that parents and carers should be able to access and understand what their child is taught at school, so that they can continue to support their child’s learning at home and answer questions. However, that should be achieved in a way that does not increase school and teacher workload. The new clause could require schools to maintain and collate a substantial number of materials across various platforms, covering all subjects and school years, down to every single worksheet, presentation, planning document or text. That is not necessary. There are already many ways in which parents can engage with their child’s curriculum that would not add to teacher workload. The national curriculum, which will be taught in academies and maintained schools, is published on gov.uk. Maintained schools and academies are required to publish details of how a parent can access further information about the school’s curriculum. Schools must also have a written policy for relationships and sex education, which must be developed in consultation with parents. The statutory guidance is clear that this should include providing examples of the resources they intend to use, to reassure parents and enable them to continue conversations at home. We will make sure that that is reinforced when we update the guidance. Finally, parents can be reassured that Ofsted reviews curriculum materials to ensure that they support pupils to achieve good outcomes. The new clause is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. There is no evidence of a widespread problem that would justify the extra burden and bureaucracy it would create for schools. If parents have concerns, there are ways of dealing with them. On that basis, I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
- The new clause simply says 'a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum' — present tense. The school already holds the materials; the only question is whether parents can see them, take them away and discuss them. That is not a huge bureaucratic burden. Free debate on what children are taught is being stifled, and that is not right. We will press to a vote.
I listened to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East and, broadly speaking, agree with everything he said. I am absolutely in favour of a balanced diet and the free exchange of different ideas, and nothing we are proposing in any way speaks against that. What we propose is in fact a way to ensure that that happens, by allowing parents to see what their children are being taught. I find myself out of sympathy with the Minister’s argument that this is somehow a massive bureaucratic requirement. With state schools, there is FOI, so parents are able to access these materials. The problem has come with private providers using copyright law to escape the same transparency that we expect of schools normally, which is not right. I do not accept that the new clause would require people to have 20 years-worth of materials. It simply states that “a school must allow such persons to view all materials used in the teaching of the school curriculum”. That is in the present tense, so this is not some huge bureaucratic burden. The school has the materials, and the only question is whether the parents can see them, take them away and talk about them to other people. At the moment, free debate on such things is being stifled, and a hugely important principle is being denied to people. We have a right to see what our kids are being taught in schools. For that reason, we will press the new clause to a vote.
- New clauses 59 to 62 address the critical gaps in support for kinship carers and children in kinship care. Kinship carers step up at no notice out of love — yet 45% give up work and a similar number permanently reduce their hours. New Clause 59 would provide paid employment leave. New Clause 60 would provide a non-means-tested allowance on a par with foster carers — saving approximately £35,000 per child per year compared to local authority care, ending the postcode lottery of patchy council support. New Clause 61 would extend pupil premium plus to all children in kinship care. New Clause 62 would give kinship children the same admissions priority as looked-after children. The Secretary of State herself told kinship carers to keep pushing her — these new clauses do exactly that.
The end is in sight for all of us—we are on to the last column of the selection list. I will speak to new clauses 59 to 62, which are in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. The new clauses all refer to support for kinship carers and children growing up in kinship care. In clauses 5 and 6 in part 1 of the Bill, we discussed and agreed a number of encouraging provisions on defining kinship carers, setting out the support they are eligible for and providing additional educational support for the subset of children growing up in kinship care. However, what we have already agreed in Committee falls far short of the ambition that I heard the Secretary of State herself set out at a reception for kinship carers just a couple of months back. At that reception, the right hon. Lady—unusually for a Secretary of State—called on campaigners and policymakers to keep pushing her. I think that that was in order to give her the clout in Government to go further. The four new clauses seek to do just that, and I hope Ministers will receive them in that spirit. New clause 59 would ensure that kinship carers are entitled to paid employment leave. New clause 60 would put into statute an entitlement to an allowance on a par with that for foster carers. New clause 61 would extend pupil premium plus to all children in kinship care, based on the definition the Committee has agreed. Finally, new clause 62 would prioritise those same children for school admissions. Kinship carers are unsung heroes, often stepping up at no notice to look after a child they are related to or know, because the parents can no longer do so. In oral evidence, Jacky Tiotto of the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service told us that “the kinship carer’s life will not continue in the way it had before, in terms of their ability to work, maybe, or where they live. We know that local authorities are under huge resource pressure, so there is going to have to be…
- The Government deeply values kinship carers. Employed kinship carers already benefit from day-one unpaid time off for dependants, unpaid parental leave, carer's leave and the right to request flexible working — with the Employment Rights Bill making flexibility the default. On allowances, a £40 million kinship financial allowance pilot — the single biggest Government investment in kinship care to date — will go live in autumn 2025 to build the evidence before a wider roll-out. On pupil premium, schools can already direct funding to kinship children as those with identified need; there are no plans to change eligibility criteria at present. On admissions, many kinship children already qualify for highest priority — those who are looked after or previously looked after. The admissions code also provides a fair access protocol route. I ask the hon. Member not to press the new clauses.
I thank the hon. Members for Twickenham and for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire for these new clauses. I want to start by emphasising how much I value kinship carers, who come forward to provide loving homes for children who cannot live with their parents. We absolutely recognise the challenge that many kinship carers face in continuing to work while dealing with the pressures of raising a child unexpectedly. The support offered by the Government to kinship carers is a floor, not a ceiling, and we encourage employers to go further, where they can. One example of that is the Department for Education, which employs more than 7,500 public sector workers and has recently joined a small number of private sector employers, including Card Factory, Tesco and John Lewis, in offering a paid leave entitlement to all eligible staff who become kinship carers. Employed kinship carers may already benefit from a number of workplace employment rights that are designed to support employees in balancing work alongside caring responsibilities. Those rights include a day one right to time off for dependants, which provides a reasonable amount of unpaid time off to deal with an unexpected or sudden emergency involving a child or dependant, and to put care arrangements in place. There is also unpaid parental leave for employees who have or expect to have parental responsibility, which we are making a day one right through the Employment Rights Bill. An employee may not automatically have parental responsibility as a result of being a kinship carer, but may do if they have acquired parental responsibility through, for example, a special guardianship order. If they are looking after a child who is disabled or who lives with a long-term health condition, they would also be entitled to carer’s leave, which would allow them to take up to a week’s leave in a 12-month period. All employees also have a right to request flexible working from day one of employment. The Government will make flexibil…
- The pilot announced covers only a tiny number of local authorities and a very small subset of kinship carers — that is not ambitious enough. I will press New Clause 60 on allowances to a vote, but leave the others.
I thank the Minister for her response. It is obviously disappointing that Ministers will not go further, particularly on allowances. The pilots that were set out in a tiny number of local authorities with a very small subset of kinship carers were not ambitious enough. On that basis, I would like to press new clause 60 on allowances to a vote, but I am happy to leave the others. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 60 Kinship care allowance (1) A person is entitled to a kinship care allowance for any week in which that person is engaged as a kinship carer in England. (2) For the purposes of this section, a “kinship carer” has the meaning given in section 22I of the Children Act 1989, as inserted by section 5 of this Act. (3) A person is not entitled to an allowance under this section unless that person satisfies conditions prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. (4) A person may claim an allowance under this section in respect of more than one child. (5) Where two or more persons would be entitled for the same week to such an allowance in respect of the same child, only one allowance may be claimed on the behalf of— (a) the person jointly elected by those two for that purpose, or (b) in default of such an election, the person determined by, and at the discretion of, the Secretary of State. (6) Regulations may prescribe the circumstances in which a person is or is not to be treated for the purposes of this section as engaged, or regularly and substantially engaged, in caring for a child under an eligible kinship care arrangement. (7) An allowance under this section is payable at the weekly rate specified by the Secretary of State in regulations. (8) Regulations under subsection (7) may specify— (a) different weekly rates for different ages of children being cared for, or (b) different weekly rates for different regions of England. (9) Regulations under subsection (7) must specify a weekly rate that is no…
- New Clause 63 is — I confess — stolen intellectual property from new Labour's Education Act 2002, a provision passed but never commenced: powers for Ministers to set up areas of innovation in schools. Our purpose is as much about the spirit of innovation and reform of the early Blair years — of parental choice and the reforms under Lords Baker and Adonis — as about the specific power. We will not press it to a vote, but we hope Ministers will return to that spirit.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. As Ministers look at new clause 63, they may think it seems strangely familiar, and I must confess that it is a piece of stolen intellectual property. As you will recognise, Mr Betts, it is a rip-off of new Labour’s Education Act 2002. Funnily enough, it is a part of that Act that was passed as legislation but never commenced. It is a good thing in itself, as it enables Ministers to set up areas of innovation in our schools, and it is a part of a wider good thing: the spirit of innovation and reform in our schools of the early Blair years, which we want Ministers to return to. In the health service, there has been a 40-year discussion about why innovation is so hard and why innovations do not spread in the NHS. In schools, although the situation is not perfect, it is definitely better because of parental choice and the reforms under Lord Baker, Lord Adonis, the coalition and beyond. I commend to all members of the Committee Lord Adonis’s superb book “Education, Education, Education: Reforming England’s Schools”, which brilliantly captures the spirit of that era and what that Government were trying to achieve. Although we think this would be a useful power, our purpose of drawing attention to it is as much about the spirit of what we want to see in our schools. There have been some changes of tone from Ministers during the course of this Bill Committee, and we hope we can persuade them to go further in the same direction. That is why we have discussed this new clause, but we will not be pressing it to a vote.
- The Education Act 2002 innovation powers were designed to encourage schools to consider barriers to raising standards and explore innovative options — an effective tool, but time-limited, with only 32 orders made between 2002 and 2010 and the last in 2012. Since then, evidence-based innovation has become the norm through curricular hubs, behaviour hubs and EEF trials — schools do not need the 2002 powers to innovate. The Bill guarantees a core floor, not a ceiling, and does not prevent schools and trusts innovating above that framework. I ask withdrawal.
Things really can only get better—[Laughter.] I thank the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the existing provision in part 1 of the Education Act 2002, and his open admission that the new clause draws its inspiration from it. That Act, in the early days of academies, introduced powers to facilitate innovation that were designed to encourage schools to consider barriers to raising standards for their pupils in their particular circumstances, and to explore innovative options that might not previously have been considered. It provided a means of promoting school freedoms and flexibilities, and was an effective strategic tool that enabled schools, local authorities and the Department for Children, Schools and Families, as it was, to test new ideas. It encouraged schools and local authorities to re-examine their existing practices and make use of freedoms and flexibilities that they already had. It was not designed to allow long-term flexibility, as this new clause is; rather any exemption is time limited. The Act provoked consideration of real and perceived barriers to raising standards, and many schools discovered that not all innovative ideas require an exemption from legislation, because the necessary freedoms and flexibilities already exist. Annual reporting shows that only 32 orders were made between 2002 and 2010 using the power. We understand that the last order under the power was made in 2012. Since then, schools and trusts have innovated and tested ideas without the 2002 powers being necessary or used. Evidence-based practice and innovation is now the norm in many of our schools and trusts. There is a range of programmes, such as curricular hubs, behaviour hubs and teaching schools, geared to driving schools towards spreading evidence-based practice, and away from doing other things. The Department works closely with the Education Endowment Foundation, which is independent from Government and trusted by the sector, to understand which interventions and…
- The same 'floor not ceiling' principle that will apply to teachers' pay should apply to school support staff — the majority of the school workforce. Trust leaders have told me they will be deeply concerned if the school support staff negotiating body cuts across academy freedoms to pay more, as that would devastate their ability to retain the best staff in high-demand areas. New Clause 64 would ensure academies retain the freedom to pay above whatever floor is set.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The Minister just talked about the principle of having a floor, not a ceiling. Through our debates, we have now established that for teachers, but of course teachers are not a majority of the school workforce. The majority of the workforce are those who are sometimes called school support staff. These people are no less worthy than teachers of our praise and admiration. They fulfil all manner of roles, from the most essential to the most demanding. Through this new clause, we ask that the same principles that are to be applied to teachers’ pay—we hope that those will translate into reality—should apply to the majority of school staff: school support staff. Although trust leaders anticipated the school support staff negotiating body, some were surprised about the proposal for it to cut across academy funding arrangements, and not all had anticipated that it would apply to them. A number have said to me that they will be very concerned if their freedoms to pay more to retain the best school support staff were, in effect, taken away from them, because that would have a devastating effect on their schools. Legislation on this issue is being considered in another place, but I hope that we can establish that Ministers will maintain that vital freedom to pay more, particularly in high-demand areas, to retain good people in our schools. A person does not have to be a teacher to play a crucial part in the education of our children, and what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We hope that the same principles that Ministers say will apply to teachers can also be established for the rest of the school workforce.
- Provisions to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body are already in the Employment Rights Bill — clause 30 and schedule 3 — which is about to reach Report stage. The issues the hon. Gentleman raises will be considered as part of that body's work. Amendments on this should be brought forward there, not here. I ask withdrawal.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s celebration of school support staff. He is absolutely right: they are the beating heart of schools up and down the country. For that very reason, provisions to reinstate the school support staff negotiating body are currently going through Parliament as part of the Employment Rights Bill. That Bill’s clause 30 and schedule 3, which pertain to the SSSNB, were debated in Committee in the House of Commons on 17 December 2024, and the Bill is about to move to Report stage in the House. Any amendments relating to the school support staff negotiating body should therefore be considered as part of the Employment Rights Bill, and the issues that the hon. Gentleman outlined will be considered as part of the work of the school support staff negotiating body. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his new clause.
- Summer-born children with SEND are often placed in a younger year group at school at their parents' request — but when they transfer into or out of special or mainstream school they are moved back to their chronological year, losing a whole year of education. Guidance exists for summer-born children without EHCPs but not — strangely — for those who do. New Clause 68 would require guidance for local authorities and school admissions authorities on this. New Clause 69 would require data collection on summer-born SEND children.
I am moving the new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), who has raised the issue that summer-born children with SEND are often placed in the following year group at school, often at the request of their parents, but when they transfer into or out of special or mainstream school, they are then placed back into their chronological year and, as a result, end up missing a whole year of education. Guidance exists for summer-born children who do not have EHCPs but not, strangely, for those who do. New clauses 68 and 69 would simply require guidance to be published for local authorities and school admissions authorities on the admission of summer-born children with education, health and care plans and would require local authorities to collect and publish data relating to summer-born children.
- The Government agrees these are important decisions. In July last year, I committed to consider publishing guidance on how decisions about summer-born children with EHC plans are best made, and we will confirm our decision in the coming months. The existing voluntary biennial survey already collects data — only 1.5% of parents of summer-born children request out-of-year-group admission, and nine out of ten such requests are approved. We may consider adding EHCP-specific questions in future reviews but a new statutory duty is disproportionate. I respectfully ask withdrawal.
The Government agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham that local authorities have important and complex decisions to make when parents ask for a summer-born child with an EHC plan to be placed outside the usual year for their age. The Department’s existing guidance for the admission of summer-born children without education, health and care plans sets out a recommended approach for those key decisions. Many of the considerations in that guidance will be similar for children with an education, health and care plan. Getting those decisions right can make a huge difference to the child’s outcomes and their experience of school, so such decisions need to be made thoughtfully and fairly, with due consideration given to what the parents want for their child. That is why, in July last year, in response to a parliamentary question from the hon. Member for St Albans, I committed to consider whether we should publish guidance on how these decisions are best made. We have been doing just that, and will confirm our decision in the coming months. In the meantime, it would not be appropriate to pre-empt the content of any such guidance by confirming the details now. However, I can say that we have been giving careful consideration to many of the matters outlined in the new clause and deciding how best to proceed. On new clause 69, the Department conducts a voluntary biennial survey of local authorities about the admission of summer-born children. That asks local authorities to include data, where they hold it, about all schools in their area. The Department publishes a report on the findings of the survey, those findings show that only a small proportion—1.5%—of parents of summer-born children ask for them to be admitted to reception at age five. The vast majority of such requests—nine out of 10—are approved. The first summer-born children admitted out of their normal age group are now transitioning to secondary school. Our next survey will ask local authorities for data about…