Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill

Committee (1st Day)

Amendment 1

1: Before Clause 1, insert the following new Clause— “Purpose(1) The purpose of this Act is to— (a) improve the safety and wellbeing of children;(b) improve the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings where looked after children are accommodated;(c) improve safety and standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales;(d) make provision regarding children not in school.”

My Lords, Amendment 1 in my name seeks to clarify the purposes of the Bill. While the Government’s intentions, to improve children’s safety, well-being and education, have widespread support, I tabled this amendment because I believe there is currently an unbridgeable gap between these aims and several of the provisions within the Bill.

I must express profound concerns regarding both parts of the Bill. There is a troubling pattern throughout it of an unclear definition of the problem it seeks to solve, insufficient evidence for the proposed solutions, a lack of successful piloting to give us confidence these changes will achieve their intended outcomes, no clear implementation plan, insufficient resources to implement and important gaps in areas including children’s well-being, special educational needs and disabilities, smartphones, social media and more. So, our job across this House, as the scrutinising Chamber, is to do just that, and to ensure that the Bill leaves this House stronger and in a state where we can all feel confident that it will work in practice and not just on paper.

In recent weeks, I have spoken to a number of directors of children’s services and practitioners, who have all, unprompted, raised serious concerns about Part 1, particularly around the reforms to family help, children in need and child protection. The most alarming concerns came yesterday from Professor Eileen Munro, author of the 2011 review into child protection, who stated in a letter in the Times:

“The government's proposed reforms of children’s social care risk dismantling a system that has steadily improved, without clear evidence that the replacement will work. While the ambition to expand early help is welcome — indeed, my own review called for this — the plan lacks realism, rigour and a clear safety framework”.

She continued:

“These reforms radically restructure a complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements. Yet the Department for Education is altering or removing key processes without asking why they exist or how they interact with other checks and balances. What looks tidy on paper (neatly divided ‘pillars’ of reform) may create dangerous, unpredictable consequences in practice as they interact”.

My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Marlow Education Trust, which is a multi-academy trust.

This amendment, so ably moved by my noble friend, is necessary to confirm and clarify the objectives of the Bill, but also to stop the Government doing anything that is outside those objectives. I recall a similar purpose amendment being moved at the beginning of the Renters’ Rights Bill by my noble friends; a similar amendment was tabled at the beginning of the then Terrorism (Protection of Premises) Bill, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Fox, from the Lib Dem Benches, proposed an identical purposes amendment to the then Non-Domestic Rating (Multipliers and Private Schools) Bill. It therefore seems that such so-called purpose amendments are becoming a feature of the process of legislative scrutiny, made more necessary when the time for Second Reading, which also deals with the purpose of the Bill, was so short.

The amendment sets out the ambitions of the Bill, and the only point I want to make in a brief intervention is that these ambitions do not seem to take account of the many challenges facing the education sector. The Bill is in a sort of vacuum, detached from the real world.

The provisions of the Bill, as my noble friend just said, will impose new responsibilities on local authorities, children’s services, adult services, schools and teachers, but this is expected at a time when there are already enormous pressures on the sector, raising the question as to whether there will simply be the capacity to deliver, however much good will there may be and however well intentioned the measures.

Let us take finance. Non-protected departments such as the DfE have been told by the Treasury to model reductions of 11% in their expenditure. We do not know the outcome of that round, which is designed to keep the Government within their fiscal rules, but I would expect the department to have to make some uncomfortable decisions, and that will affect the capacity of officials to deliver reform and indeed of the department to fund reform.

My Lords, I strongly support the purpose clause, particularly where it describes the purpose of the Bill as being to

“improve … standards and remove barriers to opportunity in schools in England and Wales”.

I will be very brief and focus on Part 2, dealing with schools. For me, Part 2 should be first and foremost about promoting parental choice, because only parents really know what sort of education is best for their children: not the state, but parents. There should be choice—as much as possible—since children are all different, and what can be better than an education which enhances the unique talents and personalities of each child? This also chimes with Article 2 of Protocol 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights, which states in terms:

“In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions”.

So choice should be enshrined in any Bill purporting to promote children’s well-being.

Is this the Bill’s aim? Looking at Part 2, I rather fear that the opposite is the case. To take just two examples, academies are important, since their heads have shown by their excellent records of achievement that they know how to run schools better than government. But Part 2 would impose a one-size-fits-all national curriculum on academies, with the worst probably to follow in sweeping Henry VIII powers. Then there are faith schools. What could be more important than a child being educated in an environment rooted in discipline, dignity and duty, which are the hallmarks of our faith schools, such as Haredi schools and other faith schools? But Part 2 would grant sweeping powers to local authorities to monitor, register and regulate faith-based settings. It seems to be an agenda seeking uniformity over choice and threatening our diverse landscape, so much admired across the world. As it stands, therefore, Part 2 of the Bill does not enhance children’s well-being, which is what the Title of the Bill says it is supposed to do.

My Lords, here we go in Committee and here we have had, probably, our first Second Reading speech from a colleague. I will not make a Second Reading speech; I will address this amendment, which I think is unnecessary. We have a perfectly sensible, comprehensive description of what this Bill seeks to do. We do not need another list in the Bill.

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the purpose clause from my noble friend Lady Barran has given us to range far more freely than the tightly timed Second Reading allowed. I could only comment on what was in the Bill and pay scant attention to what I sensed was lacking. Part 1, and therefore the first half of the purpose clause, is where my sights are set in this Bill: improving the safety and well-being of children and improving the regulation of children’s homes, fostering agencies and other settings where looked-after children are accommodated. We heard from my noble friend about Professor Eileen Munro’s letter to the Times yesterday. She robustly supports the expansion of early help. It is in the provision of this where the Bill needs strengthening and greater specificity: for example, about the role of family hubs, which are not even mentioned.

A complex system of professionals and safeguarding arrangements is being restructured and key processes changed or removed, without it being clear what functions they are already performing or their place in the bigger picture. I was on the design group of the Independent Review of Children’s Social Care—I mentioned that at Second Reading—and my most detailed offline discussions with the review team were on this restructuring, which I can see might be perceived to be finicky and potentially unnecessary. I am hearing concerns from directors of children’s services, and now from Professor Munro, that these reforms could weaken child protection, at a time when we are trying to batten down the hatches with, for example, the single unique identifier. As I will keep saying during Committee, I am concerned, as I was during the independent care review, that we are trying to do by process what we should be doing through relationships between professionals.

Does the Minister agree with the Department for Education spokeswoman, also quoted in the Times, who said that Munro’s criticisms

I understand why the Start for Life offer has to be tightly drawn for local authorities, with far more patchy provision. However, where local authorities have pioneered good practice and blazed an innovative trail for other councils that has proven successful, they should not have to conform to a one-size-fits-all approach. I understand that a level of standardisation is essential to get timely scale-up of new approaches. What used to be known as the troubled families programme began in quite a clunky way, which attracted a lot of criticism, but it would never have got off the ground without tight controls around payment by results. However, a sizeable chunk of its success lay in its operation becoming more flexible for well-performing local authorities. The ability to gain earned autonomy from the strictures of payment by results gave local authorities lump sums to spend on early intervention and helped to float a fleet of family hubs. Deploying a similar approach with councils whose family hubs are being hampered in delivering excellence by command and control from the centre could similarly help greatly with progress of the whole national programme. Hence I will likely table amendments later in this Bill that would give councils earned autonomy in how they design and deploy family hubs.

My Lords, we have heard some highly respected voices this afternoon, and I want to put two or three things on the record.

The noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, rightly draws attention to the fact that this kind of clause is now becoming commonplace at the beginning of Committees on Bills. I understand why people might want to raise specific issues, or even flag the amendments that they want to move in Committee, but if we prolong this stage to the point where our debates lose their purpose or we go on into the night—when, frankly, it is impossible to have rational and sensible debate—we will lose the purpose of the Committee itself.

I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, who I respect as a friend, said about Second Reading. I was frustrated to have only four minutes, and I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, was deeply frustrated because she was trying to get back to Britain and could not. But we cannot have Second Reading debates at the beginning of every Committee.

I make an appeal. I have amendments down, and I understand that we need to listen and learn. On Second Reading, my noble friend the Minister did just that, and listened to what I and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and others from outside this House, were saying. There is a willingness to listen and reflect and to believe that we do not get things right the first time. There is real wisdom and experience in this House and beyond that can be brought to bear, and we can change the Bill and have a better result at the end of it. But, to pick up what the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, said, we will do so only if we respect each other, with no calling out of people due to ill will, and if Ministers are committed to working with us. That is the role of our House. Over the 10 years I have been here, I have understood, in a very clear way, how different it is from the House of Commons. If we are able to listen to each other, take well-meant amendments and see how we can provide a better outcome for all, so much the better for this House.

My Lords, I sat through almost all the Second Reading but deliberately did not intervene in it because I was trying to ascertain how much of the Bill was to do with Wales and how much was not. In the context of her amendment, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, to clarify subsection (1)(c) of the proposed new clause, where it says, and I select the words deliberately,

“improve … standards … in schools in … Wales”.

Education in Wales is a totally devolved subject. I know that the Welsh Government and the Senedd have asked for certain provisions to be made via the Bill for application to Wales. I am sure the Minister can confirm that. Those are specific provisions that have been asked for and not a matter of generality. As I read the proposed new clause, there is a suggestion that it applies to the generality of standards in schools in Wales. The noble Baroness spoke of autonomy and accountability. That goes to the heart of the administration and provision of education in Wales, which is a devolved matter, and we must be clear in our minds why we are choosing those words.

Clearly, the term “England and Wales” can arise quite rightly when we are talking about the jurisdiction or the legal aspects of it. But here we are talking about the administration of education. Specifically, we are talking about schools and schools in Wales, and the Senedd has the right to know to what extent amendments such as this are meant to apply to them.

My Lords, I will not repeat my Second Reading speech. I draw attention to my interests on the register, particularly the fact that I am chair of a multi-academy trust.

Regarding subsection (1)(a) of this proposed new “Purpose” clause, the Long Title states that it is to make

“provision about the safeguarding and welfare of children”.

Nothing that we could do to further that endeavour could be greater than to restrict access to social media to those aged over 16. That is why I have tabled Amendment 177 to that effect. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, for whom I have a huge amount of respect, said, this is so central to the overriding purpose of the Bill that I will take a few moments to elaborate.

I think we all know naturally that social media is very harmful to our children, but there is now an overwhelming body of evidence to support this. I recommend that anybody who has not done so reads the excellent book The Anxious Generation by Jonathan Haidt. We want our children to be brought up confident, able to engage in deep thought, reflective and able to concentrate, to exercise judgment, to see the other side’s point of view, to be compassionate et cetera. We also want them to get a good night’s sleep. Smartphones and social media set up exactly the opposite behaviours.

In the 2022 PISA assessment, our children were in the bottom 10 of 31 countries in areas such as curiosity, perseverance, emotional control, stress resistance or grit, empathy and co-operation. There is now a strong body of clinical evidence on the harm that excessive use of smartphones and social media is doing to our children’s brains and eyesight.

Adolescence is a period of life in which our sense of self undergoes a profound transition. As teenagers become more conscious of how others see them, they often experience increased self-consciousness and self-criticism. Social media and the algorithms attached to them serve only to amplify this.

This is a Second Reading speech, but it is very interesting. Does the noble Lord accept that the charitable sector and social enterprises probably have quite an important role to play in the delivery of residential care for children and that flexibility will help with the finances of that because they are not in the business of making excess profits?

There are many in the charity sector that are professional, but there are many others. I do not think we disagree about this.

Turning to other settings, I am an adviser to the Royal National Children’s SpringBoard Foundation, which works with more than 200 independent and state boarding schools across the country to support care-experienced and vulnerable children into often fully funded school bursary places. A significant proportion of the almost 300 children supported since 2021 are either with foster carers or in kinship care arrangements. Those in kinship care arrangements have achieved a 100% stability rate, which means that they have not needed to change carers, and those in foster care a 98% stability rate. Independent research by the University of Nottingham shows that they are four times more likely to achieve good GCSEs when compared with a matched control group, and 75% of them are going to university versus just 13% of care-experienced young people nationally. RNCSF is working hard to expand this provision, and I would be grateful if the Government could consider meeting its representatives to discuss how they can help it to do this further. Perhaps the Minister could indicate that she or one of her colleagues is prepared to meet them. They are good people.