👂 Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill (Thirteenth sitting)

• The session discussed the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, focusing on new clauses related to school meals, activities, and student welfare.

• New Clause 5 proposed making the holiday activities and food (HAF) program a statutory requirement, highlighting concerns over food insecurity, especially during school holidays. The Minister acknowledged the importance of HAF but preferred maintaining the program’s current non-statutory status to allow local innovation.

• New Clause 8 and related amendments aimed to auto-enroll eligible students for free school meals, bypassing the opt-in process. This was intended to reduce the number of children missing out on meals due to administrative barriers. The government responded by stating they are exploring better data sharing and considering auto-enrollment, but through a taskforce, not immediate statutory changes.

• New Clause 9 suggested establishing a protocol for disseminating information about bereavement support services for children. The Minister noted ongoing government efforts to improve access but didn’t support a legislative solution.

• New Clause 52 proposed requiring schools to develop and publish bereavement policies to better support grieving students. The government recognized the value of such policies but stressed existing guidance and curriculum reviews intended to support mental health and bereavement education.

• New Clauses 11 and 12 focused on reviewing the benefits of outdoor education and providing residential experiences for children in kinship care. The government outlined existing initiatives and suggested that the comprehensive curriculum review would address these needs.

• New Clause 13 aimed to grant foster carers more decision-making authority over children in their care. The Minister indicated that while this is important, it could be achieved without new primary legislation.

• New Clause 15 sought a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs, but the government argued that such an inquiry would duplicate efforts of the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) and preferred to focus on implementing existing recommendations.

• New Clauses 17, 19, and 18 were proposed to support academy conversion, the growth of multi-academy trusts (MATs), and training for MAT CEOs. The government reaffirmed their focus on school improvement but did not see the need for additional funds or a specific CEO training program at the moment.

• New Clause 20 pressed for the opening of pre-approved free schools and university training colleges. The government emphasized the need to ensure value for money and the viability of these institutions before moving forward.

• New Clauses 21, 22, 23, and 24 discussed strategies to improve school attendance, including policies, penalty notices, and regulations on leave. The government highlighted ongoing efforts to support schools and local authorities in tackling absenteeism without the need for new legislation.

The session of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill demonstrates a moderate level of disagreement, warranting a rating of 3 out of 5. The disagreements throughout the session were primarily focused on policy specifics and the need for further inquiries rather than completely divergent views. Here’s a detailed breakdown of the disagreements noted in the session:

1. Disagreement Over Statutory Inquiry into Grooming Gangs (New Clause 15):
   • Arguments: The most prominent disagreement was over the proposal for a statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. Neil O’Brien of the Conservative party pushed for a national inquiry, emphasizing its necessity due to the limitations of local inquiries and the incomplete coverage by the previous independent inquiry into child sexual abuse (IICSA). He argued that victims were seeking such an inquiry.
   • Counterarguments: Opposition came from Labour members, including Tom Hayes and Catherine Atkinson, who argued that a national inquiry was redundant since the IICSA had already covered the issue comprehensively. They stressed the importance of implementing existing recommendations rather than initiating another costly and time-consuming inquiry.
   • Examples: Neil O’Brien accused the government of dismissing the victims’ need for a new inquiry, while Tom Hayes countered that a new inquiry diverts resources from implementing existing recommendations, which he deemed more critical. Catherine Atkinson provided a detailed analysis of the IICSA to argue against the necessity of another inquiry.
2. Disagreement on Free School Meals (New Clauses 8, 31, 67):
   • Arguments: There was a debate regarding the expansion and administration of free school meals. Ellie Chowns proposed changes to make the application process for free school meals an opt-out system and to expand eligibility thresholds, emphasizing the need to reduce administrative barriers and increase access.
   • Counterarguments: The government, represented by Stephen Morgan, argued against making these provisions statutory, stating that the existing systems were adequate and that statutory provisions might hinder local innovation. They also indicated that changes to eligibility needed careful consideration and would be reviewed through a child poverty taskforce and a multi-year spending review.
   • Examples: Munira Wilson and Ellie Chowns expressed frustration with the government’s hesitation to set automatic enrollment and expand eligibility criteria, highlighting the ongoing issues of hunger and administrative inefficiencies. Stephen Morgan, however, reaffirmed the effectiveness of current programs and suggested caution in making immediate legislative changes.
3. Disagreement on Funding for Academy Conversions and Other Schemes (New Clauses 17, 19, 20):
   • Arguments: Neil O’Brien criticized the government’s decision to cut funding for academy conversion support grants and trust capacity funds. He argued that these were essential for maintaining school improvement and stability, citing support from educational bodies like the Confederation of School Trusts.
   • Counterarguments: Catherine McKinnell justified the removal of funding by stating that the financial health of schools suggested that they could afford conversions without additional support. She further noted that the government’s focus was on high and rising standards rather than specific funding for academies.
   • Examples: The debate showed a focus on funding priorities, with Neil O’Brien challenging the government’s decision to discontinue funding schemes, while the Minister reaffirmed their strategic direction towards broader educational improvements.
4. Disagreement on School Attendance (New Clauses 21, 22, 23, 24):
   • Arguments: Neil O’Brien proposed new clauses to strengthen school attendance policies, highlighting the significant challenge of post-pandemic attendance rates and advocating for stricter measures to address absences.
   • Counterarguments: Stephen Morgan responded that the current statutory guidance on attendance was sufficient, and that schools and local authorities were already aware of their responsibilities. He emphasized that the focus should be on support rather than punitive measures.
   • Examples: The debate highlighted different approaches to handling school attendance issues, with O’Brien suggesting legislative changes to enforce better attendance practices, while Morgan argued for continuing current strategies and support systems.

In conclusion, while there were notable disagreements, they were centered around the implementation and prioritization of various policies, rather than fundamental ideological differences. The discussions remained largely constructive and focused on the practical impacts of legislative changes.