Committee stage in the Commons
The thirteenth sitting of the Bill Committee debated new clauses on holiday hunger, free school meal auto-enrolment, bereavement support, outdoor education, foster carer delegation, grooming gang inquiries, academy trust funding, and school attendance.
E(New Clause 5 is a probing clause to make the holiday activities and food programme statutory. The HAF programme provides nutritious food, childcare and enriching activities during school holidays, but its funding is short-term — periodic extensions leave councils unable to plan, leaving children at risk of holiday hunger. Food insecurity affects 14% of UK households overall, rising to 18% in households with children and 31% in single-adult households with children. Put the HAF programme on a statutory footing alongside free school meals and the Healthy Start scheme.I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 5, in the name of the hon. Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), is a probing new clause, and I sincerely hope it will generate debate and action. Its purpose is to make the holiday activities and food programme statutory provision. Following Marcus Rashford’s high-profile campaign, the HAF programme was rolled out across England to provide children with nutritious food, childcare and activities in the holidays. One of its aims is to ensure children receive healthy and nutritious meals during the school holidays. Nutrition is a key concern. Recent reports show an increase in hospital admissions for nutrient deficiencies, and that data should really ring alarm bells. The longevity of the cost of living crisis—it has been with us for years now—means that food insecurity has become the norm for many families, who are unable to buy staple nutritious products. Stark health inequalities are highly prevalent, particularly when it comes to diet-related poor health. The most deprived communities are affected disproportionately by much higher rates of food-related ill health and disease, including obesity, type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease and dental decay. No doubt the Committee will be concerned by the food insecurity statistics collated by the Food Foundation, which show that 14% of UK households experience food insecurity, but inequalities mean that the number is much higher for certain groups. Among households with children, it is 18%. Among single-adult households with children, it is 31%. Among households of a non-white ethnicity, it is 26%—double the rate for white households. It is 32% for households with an adult limited a lot by disability, but 10% for households with non-disabled adults. Food insecurity and health inequalities go hand in hand. In that already difficult context, school holidays are a known pressure point for families, which face extra food and childcare costs, and can have reduced incom…
The HAF programme is already established in every local authority in England, backed by more than £200 million for 2025-26, with grant conditions already obliging councils to provide free holiday club places, meals meeting school food standards and physical activities. Placing a legal duty on local authorities risks stifling the local innovation — working with schools to target low attenders, or with police to support children at risk of gang violence — that makes the programme work. Future funding will be determined by the spending review. I ask the Committee not to press the new clause.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I turn to new clause 5, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher), on the topic of providing healthy meals and activities to children in receipt of free school meals during school holidays. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire for speaking to the new clause. She makes an important point about how local authorities provide support to children who receive a free school meal during term time and during school holidays, and we fully support local authorities in continuing to provide this support through the existing holiday activities and food programme. The highly regarded HAF programme is established in every local authority across England and is already delivering vital support to children and families across the country during school holidays. The programme’s grant conditions already place an obligation on local authorities to make free holiday club places available to children in their area who receive benefits-related free school meals, and to provide meals that meet our school foods standards and to deliver physical activities in line with the chief medical officer’s guidance. Our non-statutory programme guidance provides comprehensive support to local authorities and holiday clubs on how they might best provide this support. However, HAF does not provide only meals and activities; it goes much further. HAF clubs work with children to teach them about the importance of healthy eating and maintaining a healthy lifestyle. Children and their families can learn how to cook nutritious and tasty low-cost meals, and clubs can act as a referral point for families to get information, help and access to other services and support when they need it. Our programme does not support just children who receive free school meals. We provide local authorities with the flexibility to use up to 15% of their total HAF budget to work with other children and families who they deem to…
- New Clause 8 would make free school meal registration opt-out rather than opt-in, placing a duty on the Secretary of State to proactively identify every eligible child. And if the Minister's objection to NC5 is that making things statutory is 'terribly restrictive', on that basis why would we ever make anything statutory?
New clause 8 is another important probing amendment, tabled by the hon. Member for Stroud, that places a duty on the Secretary of State to proactively identify all children eligible for free school meals in England, making the application process for free school meals opt out, rather than opt in. I note that the Minister, in his comments on new clause 5, mentioned that making things statutory made it terribly restrictive. On that basis, why would one ever make anything statutory?
- Up to 250,000 children — around 11% of those eligible — miss out on free school meals simply because the system is opt-in. Early findings show children from non-white communities and lone-parent households are more likely not to be registered despite being eligible. Parents face complex forms, language barriers, lack of awareness and stigma. Schools also lose the £1,455 pupil premium for every unregistered child. Auto-enrolment using DWP benefits data shared with the DfE, with an opt-out for families, would fix this at no extra cost — it is purely an administrative barrier. The Government should take this opportunity in the Bill.
This new clause seeks to address the very real problem that up to 250,000 children, or approximately 11% of those eligible for free school meals, even under the currently very restrictive eligibility criteria, miss out on them because it is an opt-in process. It is simply not okay that so many eligible children are missing out on free school meals. That is in addition to the roughly 900,000 children who are living in poverty, but still not qualifying for free school meals because the eligibility criteria are so tight. I believe that we may be coming on to discuss that a little later. Early findings from areas with which the Fix Our Food research programme are working show that children from non-white communities, or lone-parent households, are more likely to not be registered for free school meals despite being eligible. Again, inequalities are reproducing themselves when it comes to people accessing their statutory rights. Charities working to address this totally unacceptable situation point to several reasons for the under-registration rate: parents may struggle to fill out complex forms; there may be language barriers for parents; there may be a lack of awareness of free school eligibility; and there may be stigma or embarrassment. The current system is regularly described by schools and local authorities as “cumbersome” and “financially and administratively inefficient”. Receiving statutory benefits should be easy and straightforward for people who are eligible. There are obvious benefits to the child from getting a nutritious, filling lunch, which we have discussed already today and also on our last sitting day, including reduced food insecurity, improved nutrition and health, and increased attainment and lifetime earning potential, as I set out when I spoke to new clause 2. There are also important wider benefits to the child. Struggling families also miss out on other benefits that free school meal registration would give them access to, including the holida…
New Clause 31 would raise the free school meal eligibility threshold to households earning less than £20,000 per year. The current threshold of £7,400 after-tax household income — last uprated in 2018 — leaves around 900,000 children living in poverty with no entitlement to a free school meal. New Clause 67 mirrors NC8 on auto-enrolment. The DfE has not even estimated how many children are missing out since 2013 — that is unacceptable. Hunger does not end at the age of 11; every primary and secondary school child in poverty should have a hot, healthy lunch.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this morning, Sir Christopher, on our final day in Committee. I rise to speak to new clauses 31 and 67 on free school meals. New clause 67 largely mirrors the provisions of new clause 8, which the hon. Member for North Herefordshire has just spoken to. I will address the issue of auto-enrolment in a moment. New clause 31 seeks to expand the eligibility threshold for free school meals to children from households earning less than £20,000 per year, ensuring that no child living in poverty goes hungry at school. The Child Poverty Action Group currently estimates that some 900,000 children living in poverty are missing out on a free school meal, because free school meal eligibility in England is linked to specific benefits, with a household income threshold of just £7,400 per year, after tax, excluding benefits. That leaves many struggling families without support. The threshold was last uprated in 2018. We know the huge cost of living crisis that households have had to deal with since then. For those on low incomes, that has often meant the difference between heating and eating, and children turning up to school with empty lunchboxes. I saw a mother at my surgery last year who was having to skip her mental health medication to use the prescription money she saved to pay for lunch for her daughter, who is now at college.
- Does she agree that the eligibility threshold should be set as a percentage of average household income, or some similar index that moves over time, so that the value is not squeezed every year as incomes rise but the threshold stays frozen?
The hon. Member makes an absolutely excellent point, not just about the excruciatingly low threshold for eligibility of free school meals, but about the fact that these thresholds, when set in law, get stuck at the numbers. Does she agree that thresholds should be set at, for example, a percentage of average household income, or a similar threshold that moves over time, so that we do not end up with children’s eligibility being squeezed and squeezed year on year as incomes rise but the threshold does not?
- There absolutely should be a principle in law that any threshold is uprated — the threshold hasn't moved since 2018 and more and more children in poverty are being left without a hot meal. Both Henry Dimbleby and Michael Gove have said the threshold should rise, ideally to all households on universal credit, but at the very least to £20,000. Auto-enrolment for free school meals should be a no-brainer: I pressed the Minister on how many children are missing out, and his own Department hasn't made an estimate since 2013. We will press both new clauses 31 and 67 to a vote.
I certainly agree that there should be a principle in law that thresholds are uprated, by whatever mechanism or measure, because, as we have seen, the threshold has not moved since 2018 and more and more children in poverty are being left without a hot meal at lunchtime. The threshold is far too low. Both the previous Government’s adviser on food strategy, Henry Dimbleby, and the former Conservative Education Secretary, Michael Gove, have said the threshold should rise, ideally to all those households in receipt of universal credit, but with the public finances so constrained, at the very least to £20,000. Last week, the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, when speaking to the new clause about universal provision of free school meals to all primary children, set out the moral and economic case for expanding free school meal provision. I will not rehearse all those arguments again, but I say to her and other hon. Members that hunger does not end at the age of 11. Every primary and secondary school child living in poverty should be able to access a hot, healthy meal at lunchtime. All the evidence points to better concentration, better behaviour and better academic results for those children. While I would love to extend universal free school meals to all children in primary schools—that has long been a Liberal Democrat ambition and policy after we extended it in government to all infant children—we heard from a number of witnesses during the oral evidence sessions that resources would be better targeted at those most in need both at primary and secondary school. New clause 67 mirrors new clause 8 to a large extent. Frankly, auto-enrolment for free school meals should be a no-brainer for Government. As we have heard, too many are missing out at the moment due to administrative barriers and an unwillingness to apply. These new clauses seek to ensure that no eligible child is left behind. The exact number of how many children are missing out is unknown. In a recent resp…
- Expanding the free school meal threshold is a matter for the Child Poverty Taskforce and the multi-year spending review — the Government already spends over £1.5 billion on these programmes, covering 2.1 million disadvantaged children. On auto-enrolment, we are redesigning the eligibility checking system so parents and schools can check eligibility independently of local authorities, and we are working with DSIT to explore legal data-sharing gateways. We are considering further auto-enrolment improvements, but that work needs to proceed through the spending review and the taskforce. Please withdraw new clauses 8 and 67.
Clause 31 is about the important issue of increasing the earnings threshold when it comes to families who receive free school meals. The Government have a central mission to break down barriers to opportunity for every child, which is why we would roll out a free breakfast club in every state-funded primary school so that children can start the day ready to learn. The continued provision of free school meals to disadvantaged pupils plays a crucial role in this mission, as well as in tackling child poverty. The Government’s free school meal programme is more important than ever because we have inherited a trend of rising child poverty and a widening attainment gap between children eligible for free school meals and their peers. Child poverty has increased by 700,000 since 2010, with over 4 million children now growing up in a low-income family. Of course, that is the legacy of the previous Government, which the hon. Member for Twickenham has described as shameful. That is why we have committed to delivering a strategy to reduce child poverty through the new Child Poverty Taskforce. The taskforce will consider a range of policies, including free school meals, to assess what will have the biggest impact on driving down rates of child poverty. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Twickenham about the reach of current programmes, under which 2.1 million disadvantaged children, accounting for 24.6% of all pupils in state-funded schools, are already eligible to receive benefits-based free school meals. A further 90,000 16 to 18-year-old students in further education are entitled to receive free school meals on the basis of low income. In addition, all pupils in reception, year 1 and year 2 in state-funded schools in England are entitled to universal infant free school meals, which benefits around 1.3 million children, ensuring that they receive a nutritious lunchtime meal. The meals provide much-needed nutrition for pupils and can boost school attendance, improve behavio…
- We will press both New Clause 31 and New Clause 67 to a vote later.
I will press both new clauses 31 and 67 to a vote later.
Around one in 29 school-aged children — about one per classroom — has been bereaved of a parent or sibling, yet no official data is collected on childhood bereavement at all. When a child is bereaved there is no systematic way of letting them know what support exists, despite organisations like Winston's Wish, Child Bereavement UK and the Childhood Bereavement Network offering services across the country. Schools do good work but it isn't consistent, and children need help in evenings and holidays too. New Clause 9 is a simple, low-cost protocol: ensure every bereaved child knows support is available.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Christopher. I am moving this new clause on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine). According to the Childhood Bereavement Network, around one in 29 school-aged children—about one per classroom—has been bereaved of a parent or sibling. Many more will lose grandparents, and sadly some will have lost their friends. Each year, data is collected on the number of adults bereaved of their husband, wife or child, and until recently data was collected on the number of children affected by the divorce of their parents. However, no similar data is collected on the number who face the devastating loss of their mum or dad or someone else really important in their life. All that means that when a child is bereaved, there is no obvious way of letting them know what support is available to them, despite a diverse range of services offered by organisations across the country, including Winston’s Wish, Child Bereavement UK and the Childhood Bereavement Network, which all offer online and group sessions with trained professionals and peer-to-peer services for young people to share their experience with each other. Those services are really important in engaging those young people going through quite a diverse range of circumstances, many of which will need quite bespoke support, whether that is specifically around children with disabilities or additional needs, children who might be in a rural community where they are more isolated, or simply the difference between losing someone suddenly versus through a long-term illness. We know that schools do very good work in supporting vulnerable young people through bereavement, but it is not consistent in every school. Many young people will need help at times when school is not available, such as in the holidays and in the evenings, and they may just feel embarrassed about asking people at school. New clause 9 would finally put in a simple protocol to…
- Over 46,000 children are bereaved of a parent each year — about 127 every day. Parentally bereaved young people's GCSE scores average half a grade lower than their peers, and being bereaved of a parent by 16 is associated with women failing to gain any qualification and both men and women being unemployed at 30. Yet just under half of bereaved children in the UK Commission on Bereavement survey got little or no support from their school. One teenager put it plainly: 'Everyone sees it as me just misbehaving. Maybe if teachers were trained to see the signs I wouldn't have been left for the last 18 months with no support.' New Clause 52 would require every school to have a bereavement policy, including staff training — helping schools be prepared before the crisis hits, not scrambling after it.
I rise to speak to new clause 52 on bereavement policy in schools, which is closely related to new clause 9. The hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire has already alluded to the fact that no official data is collected on the number of children and young people who are bereaved of someone important in their lives. In the absence of annual statistics, the Childhood Bereavement Network has estimated that over 46,000 children and young people are bereaved of a parent each year in the UK. That is a huge number—around 127 each day. Data from representative samples suggest that about one in 29 children and young people in school today—roughly one per classroom—has been bereaved of a parent or sibling at some point in their childhood. Some 70% of primary schools have at least one recently bereaved pupil on roll. That means that all schools are likely to be touched by bereavement, and those ripples of grief can be felt across the whole school community. When somebody in the family is terminally ill or has died, just getting to school, concentrating, getting on with peers and managing emotions can be hugely challenging, and can have major consequences for attendance and achievement in the long term. Parentally bereaved young people’s GCSE scores are an average of half a grade lower than their non-bereaved peers; in one study, girls bereaved of a sibling scored almost a full grade below their matched controls. Bereavement also has long-term effects further in life. The death of a parent by age 16 is associated with women failing to gain any sort of qualification, and both men and women being unemployed at the age of 30. Schools clearly have a huge role to play in supporting children facing such tragic circumstances. Two years ago, the independent UK Commission on Bereavement surveyed children, young people and adults about their experiences of bereavement. It found some examples of fantastic practice and support in schools, but it was far from universal. Just under h…
A legislative duty is not the most appropriate way to improve bereaved children's access to support — a cross-Government bereavement group, chaired by DHSC and including DfE, is already working on improved data collection and access to support. On bereavement policies in schools, the DfE provides resources on the Mentally Healthy Schools site, and the current RSHE guidance already requires teachers to be aware of bereavement as an adverse childhood experience. We are reviewing RSHE statutory guidance following last year's consultation and will consider bereavement carefully — it would not be appropriate to pre-empt that review.I thank the hon. Members for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire and for North Herefordshire for raising those important issues. Bereavement touches the lives of everyone, and it has a unique impact on each person. It is particularly important that children and young people who lose someone close to them are able to access support when they need it. New clause 9 seeks to improve access to bereavement support services for children. It seeks to establish a duty to make regulations to establish a protocol to provide information on those services. The Government continue to consider how to improve access to existing support. The cross-Government bereavement group, chaired by the Department of Health and Social Care and attended by representatives from the Department for Education, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Home Office, continues to look at how we can improve access to support and options to improve data collection. There are many fantastic charities and community groups—the Childhood Bereavement Network, Hope Again, the Anna Freud centre and the Ruth Strauss Foundation, to name just four—that provide vital support, and schools and other public bodies perform vital roles in supporting bereaved children and families. A legislative solution would therefore not be the most appropriate way to ensure bereaved children and young people access the support they need. On new clause 52 and the matter of requiring schools to publish a bereavement policy, including the approach to grief education, we know that teachers and other school staff do an excellent job in understanding the specific needs of their pupils and identifying what support is needed for a range of life experiences, including bereavement. To support them in that, the Department for Education provides a list of resources for schools on supporting pupils’ mental health and wellbeing. That includes resources from charities and organisations, including those I just mentioned, and resources hosted on the M…
- Academic research shows that even a single outdoor educational experience reduces anxiety, builds resilience and improves focus — especially for children with ADHD or anxiety disorders. Children's mental health is getting worse, with less physical activity and limited access to nature. New Clause 11 asks the Government to review the impact of outdoor education on children's wellbeing, providing a foundation to embed it in the curriculum. New Clause 12 would guarantee at least one residential outdoor education opportunity for children in kinship care, so they are not left behind.
I am moving the new clauses on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron). Many hon. Members will know that he has long been a champion of the benefits of outdoor education. Academic research has shown that greater exposure to natural environments improves learning behaviour and emotional health. Studies have found measurable academic and wellbeing benefits from nature-specific outdoor learning. Even a single outdoor educational experience reduces anxiety, builds resilience and improves focus in the long term, especially for children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or anxiety disorders. We know that children’s wellbeing is suffering. Children are experiencing rising mental health concerns, reduced physical activity and limited access to nature, so there is a real need to support their wellbeing. Outdoor education is proven to improve physical, emotional and social health. New clause 11 would require the Government to review the impact of outdoor education on children’s wellbeing, with the aim of providing a foundation to embed outdoor education into the curriculum. New clause 12 considers children in kinship care, or those with kinship care experience, and would give them at least one residential outdoor education opportunity and ensure that they are not left behind in accessing those benefits. We would like to hear from the Government about these new clauses.
- All children and young people should be able to connect with nature — access to green space has proven impacts on physical, mental and emotional wellbeing. We are working with Oxford University to assess the impact of nature-based programmes in schools, and will share those results. The Adventures Away from Home fund provides bursaries for disadvantaged young people aged 11 to 25 for outdoor residentials. The Bill already extends local authority statutory duties and virtual school heads' duty to all children in kinship care. Please withdraw new clauses 11 and 12.
I thank the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for his campaign to promote the positive effects of outdoor learning on young people. He clearly has the advantage of living in and representing one of the most beautiful parts of the world. We believe that all children and young people should have the opportunity to learn about and connect with nature. Access to green space has been shown to have positive impacts on the physical, mental and emotional wellbeing of young people. The national education nature park provides opportunities for children and young people to benefit from spending time in nature, as well as to take positive climate action and to drive solutions to address the growing concerns about climate change and biodiversity loss. The nature park is a key initiative of the Department for Education’s sustainability and climate change strategy, which was launched in 2022. In the light of progress in the past three years, we are now beginning a process of refreshing and updating the strategic vision for sustainability in the education sector. We are also working with the University of Oxford on research intended to assess the evidence of the impact of nature-based programmes, delivered through schools, on the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people. Once those results are published, I will be happy to share them with the hon. Member for St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire. The Government are committed to improving mental health support for all children and young people, and to giving them access to a variety of enrichment opportunities at school. Those are both important parts of our mission to break down barriers to opportunity, helping pupils to achieve and thrive in education. There is no statutory requirement to offer extracurricular activities, but the majority of schools do because those activities complement a rich and broad curriculum. Schools include a wide range of activities, such as enabling students to take part in…
- Foster carers should have the authority to make everyday decisions for the children they look after — school trips, holidays, sleepovers, haircuts, medical appointments — without having to seek permission from a social worker each time. Guidance on delegated authority hasn't been strengthened since 2013, and less than a third of foster carers say social workers are always clear about which decisions they can make. New Clause 13 would set out in the Bill a default delegated authority for foster carers on day-to-day parenting, with the placement plan able to specify exceptions. Foster carers know the children they care for best — give them the confidence and autonomy they need.
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. I am pleased to speak to new clause 13, which proposes that the Bill should provide a default delegated authority for foster carers to make day-to-day decisions for the children and young people in their care, which I think is quite straightforward. Foster carers should have delegated authority to make these everyday decisions for children in their care—for example, about day-to-day activities such as school trips, holidays and sleepovers; about important appointments for their health and wellbeing or medical appointments; or indeed about haircuts, which is an issue that has been raised regularly by young people in care and their foster carers. The guidance around delegated authority has not been strengthened since 2013. As a result, practice varies across fostering services, and foster carers are often unclear about which decisions they can take and which decisions they have to get permission for from elsewhere. Many foster carers report experiencing a lack of communication, clarity and information from social workers, with unnecessary paperwork and box ticking, and complicated processes. In the Fostering Network’s 2024 state of the nations survey, less than a third of foster carers said children’s social workers are always clear about which decisions they have the authority to make in relation to the children they foster. That lack of clarity is clearly a huge issue for a large majority of foster carers. Only half of foster carers said that social workers are able to respond to requests for decisions in a timely manner; we all know social workers are under huge pressure. Foster carers reported that the most difficult decisions to make were around social opportunities, followed by healthcare, relationships and childhood experiences. This new clause would set out in legislation that foster carers have default delegated authority on key everyday decisions where the child’s placement plan does not specify an altern…
- All foster carers should have delegated authority for day-to-day parenting — healthcare, hygiene, education, leisure — and we have already begun conversations with foster carers and providers about a proposed change to exactly that effect. But this reform doesn't require primary legislation: delegated authority is set out in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. We are committed to implementing the change through secondary legislation after a proper consultation with stakeholders. Please withdraw the new clause.
I appreciate the hon. Member’s concern for foster carers having delegated authority on day-to-day decisions for the children in their care. Foster carers offer crucial support to some of the most vulnerable children in our society. They provide love, stability and compassion to children and young people when they need it most. All foster carers should have delegated authority in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care, such as routine decisions about health, hygiene, education and leisure activities, and where that is not appropriate, the child’s placement plan should set out reasons for that. That is so that the foster carers can support the child in having a normal upbringing, full of the experiences and opportunities that any other child would have. For all decisions relating to the foster child, the foster carer has delegated authority only if it is recorded in the child’s placement plan. That means that if something is not listed on the placement plan, the foster carer does not have that delegated authority and they have to check with their social worker before any decision can be made. Foster carers can take decisions in relation to the child in their care only in line with the child’s agreed placement plan and the law governing parental responsibility. New clause 13 would mean that foster carers would, by default, have delegated authority on day-to-day issues, except where an alternative decision maker is listed on the child’s placement plan. The change outlined in the new clause does not require a change to primary legislation. Delegated authority is outlined in secondary legislation in the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. We have begun conversations with foster carers and foster care providers about a proposed change, ensuring that all foster carers have delegated authority by default in relation to day-to-day parenting of the child in their care. We believe that reform to this policy area would benefi…
This whole discussion began because Oldham itself asked for a national inquiry — because a local inquiry cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath or requisition evidence. New Clause 15 would set up that national statutory inquiry. IICSA was an important first step but was never designed to investigate grooming gangs specifically — it looked at half a dozen places out of 40 to 50 where those gangs operated, and victims in the rest have never had their stories heard. Without a national inquiry, nobody in authority has been held to account. Labour MPs including the Mayor of Greater Manchester and the Under-Secretary for the Home Department have themselves backed a national inquiry if victims want one — and numerous victims are calling for one.I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The arguments around this issue are reasonably well known, so I will be brief. This discussion started when Oldham asked for a national inquiry into what happened there, which it did because a local inquiry would not have the powers that are needed. For example, a local inquiry cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath, or requisition evidence. We have already seen the two men leading the local investigation in Greater Manchester resign because they felt they were being blocked, yet the Government say no to a national inquiry, and that there should be local inquiries instead. However, there have been years during which those places could have held their own local inquiries, but they have not. In many cases, as is well known, local officials at different levels were part of the problem, and even part of the deflection, so they cannot be the people to fix it. In Keighley, for example, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore) has been calling for an inquiry for years, but even as Ministers argued in the House that there should be local inquiries, local politicians decided again not to hold one. In these debates the Government often refer to the independent inquiry into child sexual abuse, which was an important first step, but it was not—indeed, it was never intended to be—a report on the grooming gangs. It barely touches on them. IICSA looked at about half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated, but there were between 40 to 50 places where those gangs operated, and the inquiry touches on them very lightly and does not look at the places where there were the most severe problems. It means that victims in those places have never had a chance to be heard.
Victims must be at the centre of everything we do here. Has he met any victims of child sexual abuse in the past 12 months before tabling this new clause, and if so, what did they say about it?I welcome what the hon. Member says about the importance of victims, as they must be at the centre of all we do in this area. Will he outline whether he has met any victims of child sexual abuse in the past 12 months, and if he has, what they have said about the new clause? Is the new clause based on conversations with victims?
- This new clause is based on calls by victims for a national inquiry. A proper national inquiry doesn't stop us implementing any of the previous report's recommendations — clearly those two things can happen at the same time. So far, nobody in authority has been held to account. The real question is: what are we waiting for?
The new clause is based on calls by victims for a national inquiry; I was about to come to that point. Having a proper national inquiry does not stop us from getting on and implementing any of the recommendations in the previous report. Indeed, awareness raising was one of the recommendations that was made. Without a national inquiry, we will clearly not get to the bottom of this issue, and people who looked the other way, or who covered up or deflected, will not be held to account for doing that. So far, nobody in authority has been held to account. The Labour Mayor of Greater Manchester and the hon. Members for Liverpool Walton (Dan Carden), for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and for Rochdale (Paul Waugh) have backed some form of national inquiry, and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Birmingham Yardley (Jess Phillips), said that there should be a national inquiry if victims wanted one. Numerous victims are calling for an inquiry, so the real question is what we are waiting for.
- Before I became an MP I ran a service supporting victims of child sexual abuse, and I've sat with survivors and heard some of the worst stories a human being can experience. What they need most is implementation of the IICSA inquiry that already concluded — an inquiry that heard from many victims. Not implementing those recommendations signals to survivors that everything they shared, at great personal cost, has been discarded. A second inquiry, costing significant time and money, would be better spent on direct support for victims who have been let down for 14 years.
I want to press the point about whether any victims of child sexual abuse have been directly consulted about the proposed new clause. Before I became an MP I ran a service to support victims of child sexual abuse. I have sat with survivors and listened to some of the stories they have shared about the worst things that could happen to a human being, in order to understand the difficulties and trauma that they are experiencing. I know that rebuilding their life will involve many long years of painstaking support alongside many types of services, and I know that what they need most is the implementation of the national inquiry that has already concluded, which heard from many victims of child sexual abuse. Having sat with and listened to victims of abuse, my big concern is that not implementing those recommendations will be a signal to them that all they have shared and said—after significant difficulty—will have been discarded. That will make people who have gone through awful experiences that have made them feel as though they lack dignity, once again feel as though the system that was there to support and listen to them has let them down, and that as a consequence they are not worthy of the dignity that, as human beings, they really ought to be entitled to.
- It's wrong to pretend IICSA was a report into grooming gangs — it was never intended to be. It looked at a tiny handful of places, so many of those affected have never had the chance to tell their story. Having a new national inquiry would obviously not prevent implementation of previous recommendations. The argument that Government can't do two things at once is clearly wrong and cannot be used as an excuse.
It is wrong to pretend that IICSA was a report into the grooming gangs. It was not; it was never intended to be. It looked a tiny handful of places, so many of the people who were affected by that scandal have never had the chance to have their story told. It has never been clear why having a new national inquiry would prevent us from implementing any of those previous things—it obviously would not. The argument that the Government cannot do two things at the same time is clearly wrong, so it cannot be used as an excuse not to listen to all those who have never had the chance to tell their story.
- Nobody on this side has said the job is done. But a second inquiry would consume significant time and money that would be better directed straight to the support services survivors so desperately need — services that were defunded for 14 years under the Conservatives.
I appreciate that. I will return to the important topic at hand. The Minister will comment explicitly on what the hon. Member said but I will say that, although I agree that the Government can do more than one thing, a significant amount of time and money would be invested on a second inquiry. I would want that money to be funnelled directly into the support of survivors and victims, who for so many years under a Conservative Government were denied the funding that they require to receive the support that they need in response to some of the worst experiences that a human being can go through.
- He is literally saying it is too expensive to get to the truth. I really hope he will reconsider that.
The hon. Member is in danger of literally saying it is too expensive to get to the truth. He just said that the cost of a national inquiry was the obstacle to having one. I really hope that he will rethink that point.
- That's a mischaracterisation and he knows it. He has been in this House since 2017 — 2,849 days — and he first spoke about child sexual abuse in Parliament 2,801 days in. Before calling for another inquiry, he should think about whether he has actually sat with survivors and listened to what they want.
I disagree strongly with the hon. Member. He knows exactly what I said, and he is choosing to put words into my mouth, as he has chosen to put words into the mouths of many other Committee members. If he wants to play that game, let us talk about whether he has focused properly on child sexual abuse in his time as an MP, quite apart from whether he spoke with any victims or survivors before tabling the amendment. The hon. Member has been in this House since 8 June 2017, a total of 2,849 days. It took him 2,801 days before he spoke in Parliament for the first time about child sexual abuse. He may say, “Of course, I was a Minister for some of that time,” so I calculated the amount of time that you were a Minister. It is approximately 25% of your total time as an MP. I think it is important, obviously—
- The money a second inquiry would consume should go directly to survivor support. I really wish the Conservative party would put down the politics of this issue and stop pursuing Reform voters, rather than focusing on what survivors actually need.
Thank you, Sir Christopher. I have made my point about whether the hon. Member for Harborough, Oadby and Wigston has used his time here to press the case on behalf of survivors and victims. I have made the point about whether he has chosen to sit with survivors and victims and listen to their stories before calling for another national inquiry that discards the views that have been given by survivors. I have talked about the importance of the money that could be spent on a second inquiry being better spent on the support that victims and survivors so desperately need. I really wish that the Conservative party, which did so little in government to implement the recommendations that were called for by survivors, would put down the politics of this issue and stop focusing on a desperate pursuit of Reform voters, rather than the other voters they lost to the Liberal Democrats and Greens.
Doesn't it strike you as puzzling that, of all the many types of child sexual exploitation IICSA covered, only one has become the focus of political debate? Children violated by women, by peers, in institutions — all of them seem forgotten. We should be fighting for all of them.Does my hon. Friend share my puzzlement that, given that the independent national inquiry covered so many types of child sexual exploitation—so many horrors that have been visited upon our young people—only one aspect of it has become the focus of political debate? We should focus on all the children and young people who have been violated, abused and hurt, mostly by men, but they seem to be forgotten even though the national inquiry covered a whole range of child sexual exploitation.
- Having sat with survivors, I am not prepared to allow people to play politics with their experience. This is not about how Members of this House feel — it is about survivors in our communities who have been let down for 14 years. Stop playing politics, read the report if you haven't, and show some dignity.
I could not agree more, and my hon. Friend helps me make a point that I had forgotten. You urged me to exercise control, Sir Christopher, but as you and other Members can see, I feel deeply about this topic. I feel very strongly about the importance of standing alongside survivors, and I am prepared to work with anybody in this House, of any party or none, to enhance the support that survivors receive. But having sat with survivors, I am not prepared to allow people to play politics with their experience, and for those individuals then to feign disappointment, hurt and abuse. This is not about how Members of this House feel about the honesty and truth of the words I am speaking; it is about the importance of survivors out in our communities, who have been let down for 14 years, who have suffered exploitative, abusive practices, and who will be looking to this House today to do the right thing by them. I call on the Conservatives in this Committee and across the House to do the right thing, stop playing politics, actually read the report if they have not done so already, and as a consequence show some dignity.
- A constituent came to see me after Christmas — someone who gave evidence to IICSA — who was outraged that the inquiry's recommendations had not been implemented and furious that their experience was being used as a political football. Their call is not for another inquiry but for implementation of the one already done. Would this new clause even have been tabled were it not for pot-stirring tweets from Elon Musk? I doubt it. This Committee should scrutinise the Bill, not use it to play games with the lives of survivors.
Shortly after Christmas, a person came to see me who had given evidence to the IICSA inquiry and who was deeply upset by their perception that their experience, and the experience of others like them, was being used as a political football. They were outraged to find that the conclusions and recommendations of the inquiry had not yet been implemented. In this room, my role is to represent them. Their call is not for another public inquiry but for the implementation of the recommendations of the inquiry that has already been done. I find it really disappointing that such serious matters are being used as a political football. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East made a valid point about the degree to which these issues were not addressed until very recently. I ask rhetorically: would this new clause even have been tabled were it not for pot-stirring tweets by Elon Musk? I very much doubt it. I therefore think this Committee should do the job we are here to do. We should scrutinise this Bill and not use it as an opportunity to play games with the lives of victims and survivors.
I spent seven years as a barrister on a public inquiry and I represent Derby — the city that was the subject of the first local inquiry into grooming gangs in 2010. Those crimes are despicable. New clause 15 would rerun the very questions already answered by IICSA's specific grooming gangs report — nearly 200 pages, covering patterns of behaviour, the extent of offending, institutional failures by police, councils, prosecutors and charities, and good practice. Every element of NC15's proposed scope was already examined. The report's definition of organised networks — two or more individuals known to each other — deliberately covers women and younger offenders; NC15's narrower definition of 'at least three adult males' would actually exclude real perpetrators. The previous Government didn't implement a single one of IICSA's 20 recommendations. It is not for a new inquiry to fix that — it's for this Government to act, which they are doing.I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East for his incredible experience and work in this area. I rise to speak about new clause 15, and I hope I can be of service to the Committee, having spent the past seven years of my work as a barrister serving on a public inquiry. I went straight from that to representing a constituency in Derby, the city that was the subject of the first local inquiry into grooming gangs in 2010. Those crimes are despicable and must be rooted out in Derby and elsewhere. Without the bravery of the girls in Derby, those crimes would not have been punished. I am committed to supporting the considerable action that the Government are taking to ensure that others are punished, and victims and survivors protected and supported. I am really proud to sit on this Bill Committee, which will give the next generation of children and young people in Derby better protection and life chances. The Education Secretary rightly described this as the “single biggest piece” of children’s safeguarding legislation in a generation. I will seek to set out why new clause 15 does nothing to contribute to that aim.
- Could she say how many different places the previous inquiry actually looked at?
Could the hon. Lady say how many different places it looked at?
- Six local authority areas — Durham, Swansea, Warwickshire, St Helens, Tower Hamlets and Bristol — deliberately sampled for diversity of size, demography and geography, not because grooming gangs were known to operate there. The inquiry found child sexual exploitation by gangs in all six, which made clear how pervasive this crime is. It deliberately did not re-examine Rotherham, Rochdale and Oxford, which had already been independently investigated. Sampling is good practice in public inquiries. NC15 is a weak echo of the failed wrecking amendment on Second Reading. Opposition Members should stop chasing headlines and get behind the Government's actual action — Baroness Casey's audit, the new victims' panel, mandatory reporting, grooming as a sentencing aggravator, and £5 million for locally led inquiries.
I will come to that. First, I make the point that I have the report in my hands; it is an inch thick, printed double-sided and it is nearly 200 pages. That is the specific inquiry into organised networks. Its contents are horrific, and I hope that by the end of my contribution, we will cease to hear the shadow Minister referring to the fact that it “barely touches” on grooming gangs. For clarity, organised networks that conduct child sexual exploitation, as anyone who has carried out work in child protection will know, are grooming gangs. Organised networks are defined in this report as “two or more individuals…who are known to (or associated with) one another”. Section C.3 of the report sets out carefully why that definition was used. In comparison, new clause 15 seeks to define grooming gangs as a group of at least three adult males. As we saw in the convictions of women involved in grooming gangs in Rotherham, Newcastle and elsewhere, involvement in grooming gangs is not limited to men. Sadly, several of the cases mentioned in the investigation into grooming gangs make it clear that they are not always adults, as older children and teenagers can also be involved in grooming. A further justification for another inquiry, as we heard from the shadow Minister, was that the previous inquiry covered just half a dozen places where grooming gangs have operated—namely, the areas covered by Durham county council, the City and County of Swansea council, Warwickshire county council, St Helens council in Merseyside, the London borough of Tower Hamlets and Bristol city council. The shadow Minister knows, I assume, that that was a deliberate sampling of local authorities from across England and Wales, and they were selected not because grooming gangs operated there—I do not think that was necessarily even known at the time of selection—but to consider a range of features including size, demography, geography and social characteristics. It was to illustrate different policies, p…
This Bill should probably have been two Bills from the start. But the Government control the Order Paper — there is nothing to stop them separating out the parts and reintroducing them immediately. They could change what is considered in the Commons as they choose.The hon. Lady makes an important point. This is an incredibly serious issue, and we should not be introducing anything that might inadvertently mislead. The Government control the time of the House of Commons. This Bill should probably have been two Bills to begin with; there are two distinct subjects in part 1 and part 2, but, for some reason, they were put together. There was nothing to stop the Government, at any point, from separating out parts of the Bill and reintroducing them immediately into the House of Commons—they literally control the timetable. On the Order Paper today, there was a statement on the business of the House. The Government can change the time and change what is considered in the House of Commons as they choose.
Leadership and action were needed three years ago in February 2022 when the IICSA report came out. Here are the 20 recommendations the Government have committed to implement in full: mandatory aggravating factor for CSE offences; statutory guidance on preventing CSE; data collection including a national database; strengthened criminal justice response; mandatory training for all professionals working with children; a national framework for support services; improved victim support; tailored responses for victims; a national public awareness campaign; stronger safeguarding in schools; targeted enforcement against perpetrators; a Government safeguarding systems review; adequate local authority resources; independent local safeguarding boards; review of placement settings; stronger legal framework; increased risk assessment; rehabilitation services; support for parents and families; regular review of local authority practices. Every one of those has victims at its heart — implement them, don't call for another inquiry.I want to start by agreeing with my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton Itchen that leadership and action are needed. Indeed, leadership and action were needed three years ago in February 2022 when the IICSA report came out. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North for her knowledgeable insights and her forensic examination of the Bill, the recommendations and the report. I will spend a moment establishing for the record what exactly those 20 recommendations are asking for, which we as a Government have committed to implementing in full—albeit three years too late for some victims. Let me list the headings of the report. The first is on a mandatory aggravating factor for CSE offences. The second is on statutory guidance on preventing CSE. The third is on data collection and analysis, and establishing a national database. The fourth is about strengthening the criminal justice response. The fifth is about training for professionals and requiring mandatory training for all professionals working with children, including social workers, police and healthcare staff, to help them recognise the signs of exploitation and act accordingly. The sixth is about a national framework for support, and developing a national framework for services to ensure that appropriate support is available for victims. The seventh is about supporting victims and improving the availability and accessibility of specialised support services for victims. The eighth concerns tailored responses to CSE victims, ensuring authorities provide a tailored response to the specific needs of children who are victims. The ninth is about launching a national public awareness campaign to raise awareness of CSE, educating the public and reducing the stigma that surrounds the victims. The 10th is to strengthen safeguarding in schools and introduce better protocols. The 11th is about tackling perpetrators of CSE, strengthening law enforcement’s abilities to target them. The 12th is for a Government review…
- Before Easter the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward all 20 IICSA recommendations. We will also implement all remaining recommendations in IICSA's separate February 2022 grooming gangs report. Baroness Casey is leading a rapid audit of existing evidence. The independent Child Sexual Abuse Review Panel's remit is being extended from pre-2013 cases to all cases. We are providing £5 million to help councils set up locally led, victim-centred reviews, developed with Tom Crowther KC. A mandatory duty to report child sexual abuse, making grooming a sentencing aggravator, and a duty of candour as part of the Hillsborough law are all being legislated. The Government will not accept new clause 15.
I am grateful to my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East, for Derby North, for Southampton Itchen and for Portsmouth North, and to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire, for their thoughtful and measured contributions on this incredibly challenging issue. The Prime Minister has made clear that as a Government we are focused on delivering the change and justice that victims deserve. On 7 January, the Home Secretary outlined in Parliament commitments to introduce a mandatory duty for those engaging with children to report sexual abuse and exploitation, making grooming an aggravating factor to toughen up sentencing and introduce a new performance framework for policing. On 16 January, the Home Secretary made a further statement to the House that before Easter the Government will lay out a clear timetable for taking forward the 20 recommendations in the final IICSA report, which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North powerfully set out. All of those recommendations were for the Home Office, including on disclosing and barring, and work on them is already under way. The Government will implement 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.[Official Report, 3 March 2025; Vol. 763, c. 3WC.] (Correction) As the Home Secretary states, 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. Other measures that the Government are taking forward include the appointment of Baroness Casey to lead a rapid audit of existing evidence on grooming gangs, to support a better understanding of the current scale and nature of gang-based exploitation across the country and to make recommendations on the further work needed; extending the remit of the independent Child Sexual Abuse Review Panel so that it covers not ju…
- There's a clear tension in the arguments we've heard. On one hand some colleagues say the subject is fully investigated and calling for more work is 'gesture politics'. On the other hand the Government themselves say more work is needed — just local rather than national. Not a single official has been held to account. The disagreement is simply about whether the next step should be local or national inquiry, and on that question victims and Oldham Council are on our side.
I want to point out a tension between the arguments that we have heard. One type of argument says that the job is done; there is nothing more to find out. It dismisses calls for further work as “gesture politics”—that is one phrase that we heard this morning. The hon. Member for Southampton Itchen said that the grooming gangs had been “fully investigated”. I do not believe that, nor do the victims—in fact, not a single official has been held to account. More importantly perhaps, the Government do not believe it either. They argue that more work is needed—the disagreement is simply whether there should be local inquiries rather than a national inquiry. Members continue to make arguments that the Government were perhaps making at the start of the year, but that is not where the Government are now.
- I want to be categorical: I have not said and did not imply that the job is done or that we have nothing more to learn. My colleagues who spoke today all agree. Please withdraw that misrepresentation.
On the hon. Gentleman’s point that members of this Committee have said, in so many words, that the job is done and we do not have anything more to learn, I want to be categorical in saying that those are not the words that I use and I did not imply that in anything that I said. I look to Committee colleagues to nod if they agree. All people who spoke today have nodded to affirm that what the hon. Gentleman has just said is not a true representation of what in fact they were saying or even implying, so may I please ask him to withdraw that statement?
- Nobody on this side has said this is job done — quite the contrary. What we have said is that another national inquiry is not needed. The Alexis Jay report took seven years, engaged 7,000 victims and had 15 separate strands. We've had hundreds of inquiries and 600 recommendations in the last 12 years. It is time for action — time to deliver the justice these victims deserve.
On the point about putting words in people’s mouths, nobody has said this is job done—quite the contrary. What we have consistently said is that we do not believe another national inquiry is needed. The Alexis Jay report took seven years, engaged 7,000 victims and had 15 separate strands. In the last 12 years, we have had hundreds of inquiries, serious case reviews and 600 recommendations. It is time for action. It is time to put this into practice and provide the justice that these victims deserve. That is what this Government are focused on doing.
- Will the Minister say whether she agrees with her colleague who said the grooming gangs have been 'fully investigated'? She's not intervening to agree. The tension I identified is real: the Government's own position is that more work is needed — just locally. This conversation started because Oldham Council formally asked for a national inquiry because it lacks the powers locally to summon witnesses and take evidence under oath. I will press new clause 15 to a vote.
I wonder whether the Minister agreed with the hon. Member for Southampton Itchen, who said that the grooming gangs had been “fully investigated”. Does she agree with that? I am happy to take another intervention if she does. She does not want to stand up and say that she agrees with her hon. Friend, so the tension I pointed out is real. On one hand there is an argument that there is nothing more to be found out; everyone who should be held to account has been held to account; and we must not go back into it—there is no need to go back into it. On the other hand there is the Government’s admission that we need more local inquiries. This whole discussion did not start with some person on social media. This whole conversation started because Oldham council formally asked for a national inquiry into what happened there, and it did so because it did not have, at local level, the powers needed: it cannot summon witnesses, take evidence under oath or requisition evidence. It was that request from a council—a good and sensible request—that started this discussion. I have already listed some of the Labour people who have argued for a national inquiry. I hope that in the end they will win the argument in the Labour party, but until then, I want to put the new clause to the vote. Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
- New clauses 17 and 19 press the Government to restore the academy conversion support grant and the trust capacity fund — the latter spent about £126 million over the last Parliament helping strong trusts support weaker schools. Both were ended at the start of this year. The Confederation of School Trusts says ending the conversion grant 'will leave, in particular, smaller primary schools very vulnerable' and that the trust capacity fund 'has been very successful in enabling trusts to support maintained schools that need help, especially in areas with a history of poor education outcomes'. Who is now responsible for school improvement — trusts, or RISE from the centre? What happens when they conflict?
The proposed new clauses press the Government to restore some schemes they have cut, namely the academy conversion support grant and the trust capacity fund. The latter spent about £126 million over the last Parliament, helping to grow and deepen strong trusts, helping them to do more to help their schools, and helping to create a self-improving system. Unfortunately, the fund was ended on 1 January this year. Its closure is a real loss and there is uncertainty now about who is responsible for school improvement in the Government’s vision. Is that still to be trust-led, or will it be led by RISE from the centre? What happens if ideas from RISE conflict with those of a trust? The removal of that funding sharpens the sense of a shift away from trusts as the engine for school improvement. The Confederation of School Trusts has said that this funding “has been very successful in enabling trusts to support maintained schools that need help, especially in areas with a history of poor education outcomes…That will become more difficult to do now. Trust leaders will be especially angry that Ministers have scrapped this summer’s funding round: trusts spent considerable time and effort creating bids and have been waiting for a decision for four months…School trusts have a wealth of experience in school improvement but sharing that effectively takes time and money, and we need to make sure that the wider school sector doesn’t suffer from this decision.” The confederation also says that it is “incredibly disappointed” at the decision to withdraw the academy conversion grant. It says: “Ending this grant will leave, in particular, smaller primary schools very vulnerable and without the financial and educational sustainability that comes from being part of a trust. It is a short-sighted decision that will weaken the school system.” It adds that that will have “clear consequences for the strength and sustainability of our school system…This is not a neutral decision and will impact…
- Voluntary academisation remains a real choice, and in September the Government was supporting more schools through conversion than at any point since at least 2018. Most multi-academy trusts that expanded did so without the trust capacity fund, and the current financial health of schools — the vast majority in cumulative surplus or breaking even — means the cost of conversion is affordable where the case is strong. We keep this under review and we will continue to intervene and transfer schools in the most serious cases. Please withdraw the new clauses.
We have made it clear that the Government’s mission is to break down barriers to opportunity, by driving high and rising standards, so that all children are supported to achieve and thrive. The Government are focused on improving outcomes for all children, regardless of the type of school they attend. Our energies and funding are tilted towards that, including through the new regional improvement for standards and excellence teams. Nevertheless, we want high-quality trusts to continue to grow where schools wish to join them and there is a strong case for them to do so. We know that where schools have worked together, sharing their knowledge and expertise, as happens in our best multi-academy trusts and best local authorities, we can secure the highest standards and best outcomes for our children. We will continue to consider applications from trusts that want to transfer their schools to a high-quality academy trust, or where there is a need locally to form new trusts through consolidation or merger. In September, the Government were supporting a higher number of schools through the process of converting to academy status than at any point under the previous Government, since at least 2018. Voluntary conversion remains a choice for schools. The Government believe that the benefits, including the financial benefits, of joining a strong structure are well understood, and for most schools and trusts that will mean that the case for converting will still outweigh the costs. It was the previous Government who decided to significantly curtail the availability of the conversion grant—a decision that did not have any negative impact on the rate of voluntary academisation. While I recognise that the sector welcomed the trust capacity fund, the truth is that most multi-academy trusts that expanded in recent years did so without accessing the limited fund, including those that applied to the fund but were unsuccessful. The current financial health of schools and academies sugg…
- It's nice to hear that following our decision to increase per-pupil funding by 11% in real terms, most trusts are breaking even. But I hope Ministers will reconsider — there has been a change of tone recently on academisation, and the best trusts need funding to grow and turn around struggling schools. We will withdraw for now.
It is nice to hear from the Minister that, following our decision to increase funding per pupil by 11% in real terms over the last Parliament, most trusts are in surplus or breaking even. None the less, I hope that Ministers will reconsider this matter. There has been something of a change in tone in recent weeks from the Government, particularly regarding academisation, which they say is now going to happen normally in certain cases, so I hope that Ministers will rethink some of their decisions about funding to enable that to happen, and to enable the best trusts to grow, to become stronger and to do even more to turn around our struggling schools. However, on this occasion, we will withdraw the new clause. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 18 School Trust CEO Programme “(1) The Secretary of State must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make provision for the delivery of a programme of development for Chief Executive Officers of large multi-academy trusts (‘the School Trust CEO Programme’). (2) The School Trust CEO Programme shall be provided by— (a) the National Institute of Teaching; or (b) a different provider nominated by the Secretary of State. (3) The purposes of the School Trust CEO Programme shall include, but not be limited to— (a) building the next generation of CEOs and system architects; (b) providing the knowledge, insight and practice to ensure CEOs can run successful, sustainable, thriving trusts that develop as anchor institutions in their communities; (c) building a network of CEOs to improve practice in academy trusts and shape the system; and (d) nurturing the talents of CEOs to lead and grow large multi-academy trusts, especially in areas where such trusts are most needed. (4) The Secretary of State must provide the School Trust CEO Programme with such funding and resources as are required for the carrying out of its duties.”—(Neil O’Brien.) This new clause would require the Secretar…
- New Clause 18 would require the Secretary of State to maintain the trust leadership programme, which helps teachers and heads move up to running a multi-academy trust. A huge amount of professional design work has gone into it — it really is a product of school leaders, not just Government. My understanding is the programme ends after the current cohort with no plan for another. After all that work, that's a real shame. Will Ministers commit to further intakes?
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. New clause 18 essentially raises the same issues as new clauses 17 and 19, but for a different programme—in this case, the trust leadership programme, which helps teachers and heads move up to running a trust and helps to create a self-improving system. A huge amount of work has gone into getting it right in recent years. It has been designed by the profession. It really has had a lot of work put into it, and it is a product of school leaders, not just the Government. My understanding is that the programme will end after the current cohort completes it, and that there is no plan for another cohort. After all the work that has gone into the programme, that seems a real shame. The new clause would require Ministers to commit to the programme for further intakes and to put it on a permanent basis. I hope that Ministers will make that commitment, and that we can get good news from them today about the continuation of this really important programme.
- We have announced a review of national professional qualifications, which will include the training needs of those leading multi-academy trusts. But committing to a specific service or provider in primary legislation would contravene civil service governance and public procurement rules. Please withdraw the new clause.
The Government are committed to supporting the development of leaders at all levels. As such, we have announced a review of national professional qualifications, which are evidence-based qualifications available to leaders at all levels. The review will include consideration of the training needs of those leading several schools, including large multi-academy trusts. However, committing to a specific service or provider in the Bill would contravene civil service governance procedures and public procurement legislation respectively, so we will not put in place a legal obligation to provide training or commit funding for the development of the chief executive officers of large multi-academy trusts. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw his new clause.
- Will the Minister write to tell us when the review will be complete? School leaders who are benefiting from this programme, designed by the sector, deserve to know its future. We will withdraw for now — but this is a wonderful scheme and I hope something like it is maintained.
The new clause makes it clear that there would be a choice about who would provide the scheme. We heard from the Minister that there is a review of national professional qualifications going on. I will be happy to take an intervention if she is happy to tell us a date by which we will find out the results of that review. I do not know when school leaders who are currently benefiting from, or hoping to benefit from, this very important programme, designed by the sector, will find out from Ministers what its future will be. It sounds like Ministers are saying that it will not be until the review is completed, so I now have a question about when that will be and when we will have a definitive answer one way or the other. I wonder whether the Minister will consider writing to me to tell us roughly when the review will be complete. She is sort of nodding, but I am not going to probe the point. We will withdraw the new clause for now, but this is a wonderful scheme and a crucial part of the self-improving system, and I hope that, whatever happens at the end of the review, something along these lines will be maintained. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 20 Approved free schools and university training colleges in pre-opening “The Secretary of State must make provision for the opening of all free schools and university training colleges whose applications were approved prior to October 2024.”—(Neil O’Brien.) This new clause would require the Secretary of State to proceed with the opening of free schools whose opening was paused in October 2024. Brought up, and read the First time.
- New Clause 20 asks Ministers to un-pause the 44 free schools placed in limbo in October 2024, including schools backed by the Star Trust in Dudley, Middlesbrough and Oldham — deprived communities where these passion projects could do tremendous good. Free schools have Progress 8 scores a quarter of a grade higher than expected across their intakes — they dominate the top of the league table. People with an incredible track record in our most deprived communities have spent years on these proposals. When will they get a decision?
I beg to move That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause presses Ministers to un-pause the final free schools. In October Ministers “paused” plans to open 44 new state schools, including three sixth-form colleges backed by Eton and, more importantly, by the brilliant Star Trust in Dudley, Middlesbrough and Oldham. Many of the proposals have had years of work put into them, and they are the passion projects of huge numbers of teachers and school leaders. They have the potential to do tremendous good in communities across the country, including some deprived communities. The new clause encourages the Government to end the damaging uncertainty for those schools, which have now been in limbo for a long time. Free schools generally have fantastic progress scores, which are a quarter of a grade higher across all grades than would be expected given their intakes. That is exceptional across an entire type of school—an amazing result. When we look at Progress 8 scores in this country, free schools dominate the top of the league table. That is an amazing achievement from these passion projects—these labours of love—that have been created by teachers to help communities. We hope that Ministers will unblock the proposals soon, and end the uncertainty, so will the Minister give the Committee some sense of when these schools can expect a decision?
- Accepting the new clause would commit the Secretary of State to opening all projects in the pipeline regardless of need or value for money. Nearly 150 projects have been withdrawn or cancelled over the programme's lifetime. The review announced in October 2024 focuses on the need for places and viability — it would be wrong to spend money on schools that can't be financially viable while existing school buildings urgently need investment. Please withdraw the new clause.
I understand the hon. Member’s desire to ensure that approved free school projects, including two university technical college projects, open as planned, and I acknowledge the work that trusts and local authorities undertake to support free school projects to open. However, accepting the new clause would commit the Secretary of State to opening all projects in the current pipeline, regardless of whether they are still needed or represent value for money. A range of factors can create barriers to a new school opening successfully, including insufficient pupil numbers to fill the school, or not being able to find a suitable site. That is why the Government have established practice of reviewing free school projects on an ongoing basis. As a result, over the lifetime of the programme, nearly 150 projects have been withdrawn by their sponsor trusts or cancelled by the Department. The review that this Government announced in October 2024 has a strong focus on the need for places, and will ensure that we only open viable schools that offer value for taxpayers’ money. It would be wrong to spend funding on new schools that cannot be financially viable while existing schools urgently need that funding to improve the condition of their buildings. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
- Disappointing — and no date for when those trust leaders can expect a decision. Will the Minister at least write to them to say when they can expect an answer? The uncertainty is damaging and without end.
I am disappointed to hear that from the Minister, and we are also disappointed not to hear any date for when the schools, which all those people—people with an incredible track record in our deprived communities—have worked so hard to bring into existence, will open. Will he commit to write to us to say when those people can expect a decision? The uncertainty, which is so damaging, has been going on for so long. At the moment it is without end, and no one knows when they will get an answer from the Government. I wonder whether the Minister write to us—or, more to the point, to those people—to say when they can at least expect an answer one way or the other. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Clause, by leave, withdrawn. New Clause 21 School attendance: general duties on local authorities “In Chapter 2 of Part 6 of the Education Act 1996 (school attendance), after section 443 insert— ‘School attendance: registered pupils, offences etc 443A School attendance: general duties on local authorities in England (1) A local authority in England must exercise their functions with a view to— (a) promoting regular attendance by registered pupils at schools in the local authority’s area, and (b) reducing the number and duration of absences of registered pupils from schools in that area. (2) In exercising their functions, a local authority in England must have regard to any guidance issued from time to time by the Secretary of State in relation to school attendance.’”—(Neil O’Brien.) Brought up, and read the First time.
- New clauses 21 to 24 on school attendance address one of the biggest challenges teachers consistently rank as most pressing. Persistent absence is at 18.7% for the current academic year, compared with 10.9% pre-pandemic — we appear to be topping out well below pre-pandemic norms. Even small changes in attendance can have large effects on achievement. These new clauses are a way of encouraging Ministers to push hard on this vital issue.
This series of new clauses on attendance is intended, as with other amendments on discipline, to add to the Bill content on some of the biggest issues that are facing our schools, and which our teachers consistently rate as among the most important issues facing the school system. Although there has been recovery since the nadir of the post-pandemic period, as I look at attendance figures every week I worry that we are topping out at a level that is below pre-pandemic norms. For the current academic year we are at 18.7% persistent absence, compared with 10.9% pre-pandemic. That is a huge increase. When debating proposals in Westminster Hall from people who wanted to make it easier to take children out of schools, we and Ministers strongly agreed about the powerful negative impact that can have. Even small changes in attendance can have unbelievably large effects on overall achievement. I will not labour the new clauses, because I am conscious of the time we have today and the need for many Members to get in. They were tabled to emphasise how important this issue is. I am sure Ministers agree; we are really just encouraging them to try to do more. In the most recent data, unauthorised absence is slightly up on last year. I am left with a feeling that something big is needed on this front. The new clauses are really just a way of encouraging Ministers to push hard on this vital issue.
- Schools and local authorities are already subject to the statutory guidance on attendance introduced last summer. We are supporting them through attendance hubs, an attendance toolkit, and attendance advisers. We're also delivering free breakfast clubs in every primary school, mental health professionals in schools, and £263 million in the new children's social care prevention grant. New clauses 21 to 24 are not necessary — schools and councils understand their responsibilities and we will give them the tools to meet them.
New clauses 21 and 22 seek to place new duties on local authorities and schools with regard to school attendance. Absence from school is one of the biggest barriers to success for children and young people, and has soared over recent years. We inherited a legacy of record levels of poor attendance, which impacts the life chances of all our young people, particularly the most disadvantaged. We are determined to work with the sector to tackle that legacy. That includes working with schools, which are uniquely placed to address the issue, and local authorities, which play a key role in supporting pupils whose absence is more entrenched and who face out-of-school barriers to attendance. We naturally want to see consistency in this area, and to ensure that parents clearly understand how they will be supported if their child is having difficulties. However, we do not need the new clauses to do that. Both schools and local authorities are already subject to the statutory guidance on attendance introduced last summer. Since then, we have been supporting schools through a network of attendance hubs and our recently released attendance toolkit, and local authorities through our team of attendance advisers. Both have made significant progress in improving the support that they offer to children on attendance. The challenge is to build on that progress, working in partnership. We will continue to ensure that teachers and staff are equipped to make school the best place to be for every child, by delivering free breakfast clubs in every primary school so that every child is on time and ready to learn, by delivering better mental health support through access to professionals, and by improving inclusivity in mainstream schools. We will support local authorities through the £263 million in new funding that we have already announced in the new children’s social care prevention grant, so that families can get the support they need, when they need it. Schools and local authorities und…