With this it will be convenient to discuss clauses 66 and 134 stand part.

Good morning, Sir Roger. It is a pleasure once again to serve under your chairmanship on this important Bill.

Clause 47 is a somewhat standard clause protecting the Crown, providing that the Crown cannot be criminalised by the Bill, but the Bill does bind the Crown, which essentially leads to the position in which the courts can say that if the Crown commits an act or omission against or in breach of part 1 of the Bill, such an action may be unlawful. There was one question that I asked the Minister in relation to the Crown and to which I do not think we got a clear yes or no answer, although that is perhaps not unusual for this Government. The Minister will know that the House, despite its exemption from the smoking ban drafted by the Labour Government in the early 2000s, has a record as being one of the first places to have a no-smoking area. When Parliament—more precisely, the House of Commons—sat in St Stephen’s Hall, it was so smoky in there that Members could not see one another properly, so it was decreed that there would be a snuffbox for Members’ use at the entrance to the House of Commons.

That snuffbox exists today and is, I believe, used by a small number of Members now. It is occasionally used by a Member who wants to put it on record in their own mind that they have tried it—that does not include me. My question is this. With the Houses of Parliament being a royal palace, will the snuffbox still be allowed? I know that the Doorkeepers are interested to know whether they will be able to keep the snuffbox at the door, because the top of the box has on it a brass plaque that is engraved with the name of the current head Doorkeeper. It would be interesting to know whether the tradition can continue.

My other question on clause 47 is this. I presume that it covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland because there is not separate provision for Northern Ireland. I would be grateful if the Minister indicated whether that is the case.

Clause 66, entitled “Crown application of 2010 Act”, says:

“In section 36 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 3)…in subsection (3), after “on the application” insert “of the Scottish Ministers or”.

I had a little look at the Act to which clause 66 refers, and section 36(1) of the Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act says: “This Part”—part 1— “binds the Crown.” Section 36(2) makes the Crown not criminally liable if it does breach, which is similar to clause 47. Section 36(3), with this insertion, will provide that “the Court of Session may, on the application of the Scottish Ministers or of the council in whose area the contravention is alleged to have taken place, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.” For reference, the Court of Session is Scotland’s supreme court, which I am sure you know, Sir Roger. It has been Scotland’s supreme civil court since 1532 and sits in Parliament House in Edinburgh. Section 36(4) makes it clear that although the Crown itself is not exempt but cannot be criminally liable, public servants of the Crown can be, and are, covered by the relevant provision

“as it applies to other persons.”

Subsections (1) and (2) of clause 134 are similar to those in clause 47, in that subsection (1) binds the Crown and (2) makes the Crown not criminally liable. Subsection (5) is also the same, stating that subsection (2) will not affect the liability of persons in service of the Crown, so they remain criminally liable. However, clause 134(3) and (4) are slightly different from the measures in clause 47, in that they have a somewhat broader scope.

Subsection (3) provides that the High Court in England and Wales or Northern Ireland, or the Court of Session in Scotland, can declare the act or omission unlawful, so this is a UK-wide clause, unlike clause 47. Subsection (4) makes it clear that the Court of Session in Scotland can be applied to by either Scottish Ministers, in keeping with clause 66, or a local weights and measures authority. What clause 134 does not do, as far as I can see, is explain who can make such an application in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, so I would be grateful if the Minister answered that question in relation to these measures.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I was interested by a point that my hon. Friend raised, particularly about the snuffbox inside the House of Commons itself. I think the Minister previously made the point that although the rules technically do not apply because this is a royal palace, we do apply them by convention—so there is now no smoking in the Smoking Room. However, it raises an interesting point in terms of enforcement, if they were to ban snuff in the future, about whether the Doorkeepers would be expected to be doing their ID checks as Members go through in many years’ time. I was just intrigued about the point about how we are going to apply it here. It is obviously easier with the ban on smoking at the moment—you do or you do not—but it will be interesting to see how we apply it to the to the Doorkeepers going forward.

My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point about how the snuff is given out. At the moment, the snuffbox sits with the Doorkeepers near the No Lobby entrance, and it is available to Members. Obviously—or perhaps not obviously—there is no charge to Members. In fact, my understanding from the Doorkeeper who had the snuffbox last week is that the stuff that they have currently was provided by the BBC—[Interruption.] I can see that is a surprise; it was a surprise to me too, but that is where I was told it came from.

It brings into question the earlier clauses that relate to sale, because clearly the Crown may purchase it—I suppose the BBC is funded by taxpayers—and it is in a royal palace, which is a Crown site rather than a retail site, and it is not being sold to Members. I wonder whether the Minister has had time to consider that.

May I put a question? Perhaps the shadow Minister knows, but who is paying for the snuff ordinarily? Is it the Doorkeepers, out of their own pockets, or is there some kind of taxpayer kitty? I do not think the latter really should apply.

That is a really interesting question. My understanding, as I said, is that the most recent supply was provided by the BBC—I do not know how recently, by the way. I agree that the taxpayer should not be funding the supply of snuff for Members. To me, that is an undesirable thing to do, but clearly it would not be appropriate for the cost to come out of the Doorkeepers’ pockets. Perhaps there is a Members’ fund of some sort for Members who like to participate in such a habit and would wish to ensure that the supply is provided.

I am also not sure about quite how expensive this stuff is. Having never bought it or used it, I have literally no concept of whether this is an expensive item to buy a box of. However, my understanding, from the Doorkeepers, is that not terribly much of it is used, so it stays there for quite a long time. There are a few Members who use it regularly, and, like I said, many Members who use it just the once, almost to check that it is still there. As much as anything else, it is a tradition of the House and I would be interested to know whether that tradition will be able to continue under these clauses.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. Clause 47 asserts that part 1 of the Bill and any regulations made under it bind the Crown, but makes it clear that the Crown is not criminally liable under those provisions, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said. Instead, acts or omissions by the Crown can be declared unlawful by the High Court. The key Government implication for this clause is ensuring accountability. By binding the Crown, clause 47 ensures that the Government are not exempt from adhering to the same standards and regulations that they set for others, which is entirely appropriate and demonstrates a good commitment to transparency and fairness.

There is also a symbolic commitment by the Crown to public health. Including the Crown in these provisions sends a strong signal. The Government recognise the urgency of tackling public health issues and the issues associated with tobacco and vaping, and the Opposition support that wholeheartedly. When we legislate in this House, we need to ensure that the public feel that we are legislating not only for them, but for ourselves as well. Given that the Bill now applies to us, this clause strengthens public confidence in its objectives.

On the role of judicial oversight, clause 47 enables the High Court to declare acts or omissions unlawful, which ensures that there is a mechanism for oversight. That preserves the rule of law and offers a balance of powers. However, there are some potential challenges to this clause. While the Crown is bound by the legislation, clause 47 explicitly exempts it from criminal liability, as far as I understand. Some may argue that that creates an imbalance, as individuals and private entities remain subject to prosecution whereas this House does not have criminal liability. Can the Minister clarify whether that is the case?

On practical enforcement, applying the legislation to the Crown could raise questions about how enforcement agencies would address non-compliance in Crown-operated facilities, such as this House, Government offices, military bases, and so on. Can the Minister let us know how law enforcement agencies, trading standards and the police would enforce the Bill on Crown properties? Granting the High Court jurisdiction to declare Crown acts unlawful could increase its workload. What discussions has the Minister had with the Lord Chancellor and the Ministry of Justice on overburdening the courts with such matters?

Clause 66 amends the Crown application of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, ensuring that its provisions extend to Crown entities within Scotland. That amendment reinforces the principle of equal application of public health laws. The key implications of this clause are to do with consistency across the jurisdictions, as we have talked about on other clauses. Extending the application of the 2010 Act to the Crown entities ensures that public health measures are uniformly applied across Scotland, irrespective of whether the premises are privately owned or Crown-owned.

The clause also enhances legal cohesion. Aligning the legal obligations of the Crown with those of private entities enhances the coherence of Scotland’s public health framework, reducing the ambiguities that might arise were this clause not in the Bill. The clause also promotes accountability. By amending the 2010 Act, it eliminates any loophole that might allow Crown entities to operate outside the scope of the tobacco control measures. However, there are some challenges around what I would describe as intergovernmental co-ordination—that is to say, co-ordination between the Westminster Parliament and the offices and authorities that act for it, and the devolved Administrations.

Implementing these provisions will require significant co-ordination between the Department of Health and Social Care in the UK and the relevant Ministries and Departments in the devolved Administrations. I was heartened by what the Minister said about cross-devolved-Administration working. It would be good to know whether that continues to be the case on these provisions. As we all know, working across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, with their various different bodies, does create challenging and resource-intensive actions, due to the fact that they all operate slightly differently and have slightly different thresholds for legal prosecution. As my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has said, when it comes to charging, there are different levels of fine and sentencing in the different administrations. While health is a devolved matter, this clause’s intersection with those reserved powers could prompt debate about the limits of legislative competence between those authorities.

Clause 134 is the Crown application of advertising and sponsorship restrictions and extends advertising and sponsorship restrictions under the Bill to Crown bodies.

My hon. Friend makes the point, which I had not raised earlier, that clause 134 applies to part 6, on advertising and sponsorship. Clauses 4 to 7 and 66 essentially apply to part 1. We do not appear at this time to be discussing the other parts as well, so presumably the Crown is bound in a similar way by each of those.

I make the same assumption as my hon. Friend, given what I have read of the Bill. It would be useful if the Minister clarified that matter. It would be appropriate to ensure that this does cut across all other parts of the Bill.

Clause 134 is critical in ensuring that the Crown entities adhere to the same advertising standards as private organisations. We need to have fair competition. It would be a nonsense to say that people could not advertise vapes from a commercial point of view, but that the Crown would be able to advertise. I cannot imagine what that might look like—I doubt Windsor Castle will be emblazoned with a banner advertising vapes, or that Buckingham Palace will fly a tobacco flag, but one never knows. However, it is important that this clause does cover the Crown as well to ensure that there is a level playing field, and to prevent the Crown entities from gaining an unfair advantage through less stringent regulations.

In a previous sitting I raised that in the last couple of years there have been events within Parliament at which free vapes were given out to Members and staff. Would this clause, given that it applies to the Crown, extend to all palaces? Could such events also still continue?

My reading of this clause is that those events will be restricted under this clause and clauses 66 and 47. It would be useful if the Minister clarified whether or not that is the case. If it is not, would he consider inserting a provision to ensure that it is, either later in our discussions in Committee or on Report? I do not think the public will have any time for us in this place if we regulate those outside but do not hold the Crown Estate and Crown authorities to the same standards.

The unified public health messaging in this clause is helpful. Extending the restrictions to Crown bodies strengthens the overall impact of the Bill, ensuring that the advertising provisions are consistent with the public health messaging that we are putting out across the country. It prevents mixed signals. Allowing the Crown bodies to advertise tobacco or vaping products would undermine the Bill’s whole objective. Clause 134 ensures that the Government’s stance and the stance of all Members of the House of Commons present here is not contradicted by its own entities, such as the Crown Estate.

Is it not also the case that the Crown is extremely unlikely to wish to sell tobacco products, vaping products, herbal smoking products or indeed anything else covered by the Bill, or to advertise them, since members of the royal family attribute such importance to public health and have, sadly, suffered from ill health themselves in recent times? They have done a lot of work with various charities in relation to health, including on cancer and other conditions, so it seems unlikely that these provisions would be required.

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, although it depends what we mean by the Crown; it can have two meanings. Clearly, it can mean His Majesty the King and members of the royal family, and I entirely agree that the work the royal family have done for many years to support charities and organisations that look after the health of the nation is extraordinary and commendable. In that context, I entirely agree that it is unlikely that any members of the royal family would want to promote tobacco or vape products. However, the other meaning of the Crown is, essentially, the Crown as it sits with entities: the buildings, this place—the Palace of Westminster—and so on. As I said, even though it is highly unlikely that the House of Commons authorities, for example, would want to have some sort of promotion of tobacco or vapes, it is incumbent on us to ensure that whatever we do to the public out there is mirrored in this place, to ensure consistency of public health messaging and to show that we are not being held to a different standard from the general public.

In clause 134 there are still a couple of potential challenges, which I hope the Minister will respond to. The first is oversight and compliance. Monitoring compliance within Crown entities could be complex. It is relatively easy to see if someone is selling vapes to children: people can be sent in to do mystery shopping, there can be reporting and the Minister—I have not yet said “bongs” in this debate—can see bongs in a shop window. However, how would these provisions be enforced in the Crown Estate, where there is not the same level of public access?

Is my hon. Friend also concerned that there might be a power imbalance in that set of circumstances? Windsor castle is in my constituency, and lots of deference is given to it. A lot of that is understandable, but I cannot imagine someone from the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead trying to enforce on Windsor castle; it would not be in their culture to do so.

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. He has two Windsor castles in his constituency: the big one where the royal family lives and a Lego model of it at Legoland. The enforcement of this clause should apply equally to Legoland and the real Windsor castle. But I agree that there is a power imbalance: it is unlikely that trading standards enforcement officers from the royal borough of Windsor and Maidenhead will go into Windsor castle.

What does the hon. Member think happens currently? On various issues, there is obviously enforcement across the board, including tobacco control, and the Crown Estate has to comply. How would this extension of that enforcement differ from what happens now at Windsor or any other Crown Estate?

I very much hope there is no difference, and that is precisely my point: we need consistent enforcement across the piece—across the country—in line with the restrictions we already have on the sale and advertising of other items. That does not take away from the point that doing that will be a very complex procedure. As we are moving towards a tobacco-free generation, it would be helpful if the Minister could let us know how that enforcement will be done across Crown entities and the Crown Estate.

The second point is around the legal ambiguities. Applying advertising restrictions to Crown entities might create legal ambiguities, particularly where such entities operate under multiple regulatory frameworks, which goes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor about who might be enforcing them and where.

The final point is about resource allocation. Ensuring compliance with advertising restrictions may require additional resources both within Crown entities and among enforcement agencies. To be frank, I do not know how current licensing laws are enforced here in the Houses of Parliament, for example, but if we bring in this Bill, which I very much hope we do, there may be some resource allocation within the Crown for that.

The inclusion of clauses 47, 66 and 134 in the Bill underscores its commitment to governance and legal fairness. However, as I said, their successful implementation hinges on addressing several broader considerations. First, there is what I call enhanced intergovernmental and interparliamentary collaboration. Effective implementation of these clauses will require close collaboration between UK-wide and devolved authorities. Establishing clear channels of communication and joint enforcement mechanisms will be crucial.

The second consideration is transparent compliance frameworks. The Government should develop transparent frameworks in order to monitor and enforce compliance within Crown entities. Those frameworks should include clear guidelines, reporting requirements and accountability measures. I do not expect there to be a vast burden on the judiciary but, as I mentioned, we may need to address any potential increases in judicial workload. Additional resources should be allocated to the High Court and other relevant judicial bodies to ensure that cases related to Crown compliance are handled efficiently and quickly.

Finally, there needs to be a public awareness campaign. Raising awareness about the application of the clauses can help to foster public support for the Bill by demonstrating to the public that we in the Houses of Parliament and across the Crown Estate are being held to the same standards.

My hon. Friend is making several good points. It is important that the law is applied equally to all. He may remember that when previous legislation was brought in around tobacco advertising, an exemption was made for Formula 1. It was not clear why such an exemption was made, but I believe that a substantial donation had been received around that time by the Labour party—I am sure the Minister will correct me if I am wrong. That was harmful at the time to trust in equality, so it is important that everyone—from His Majesty the King to every one of his subjects—has the same law applied to them.

I do not know the answer to that question, but it is an important one to raise. I am not particularly a Formula 1 fan, but I think that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire is the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Formula 1 and Motorsport, so maybe she will be able to intervene at some point and give me the answer.

Clauses 47, 66 and 134 represent critical components of the Bill’s governance framework. By applying the Bill’s provisions to the Crown, they reinforce the principles of accountability, fairness and consistency. However, their successful implementation will require careful planning, adequate resources and ongoing evaluation. As legislators, it is our responsibility to ensure that the laws we pass uphold the highest standards of governance, and I urge colleagues on both sides of the Committee to support these clauses and to advocate for the measures necessary to address their potential challenges. Together, we can ensure that the Bill not only advances public health, but sets a benchmark for legal and governmental accountability.

Government Members will be delighted to know that I do not have quite as much content as my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. However, I will make two points, and I seek some clarification on the second point.

As a new legislator and a non-lawyer—I know that there is an overwhelming majority of new Members in the room—my question is around the Crown. To me, the Crown seems quite a nebulous concept. We often take it to mean the state, but the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, talked about clause 47 relating to the Crown very much in the context of this place. I do not think this is a new message to any politician, new or old, but our constituents seem to believe that different rules apply to us, in public life, than apply to them.

Further to what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon, my understanding is that in 1997, Bernie Ecclestone, the Formula 1 chief at the time, donated £1 million to the Labour party. The donation became public knowledge in November that year, after the Labour Government had announced that Formula 1 would be exempt from the ban on tobacco advertising, which had been a key plank of the Labour party’s election manifesto. That exemplifies the importance of ensuring that donations do not affect policy and that we are all treated equally under the law.

Order. We are starting to go a little wide of the subject under discussion.

I thank my hon. Friend for that point. The point I was trying to make is that although, as Members have heard, I do not necessarily agree with all the impositions on civil liberties in the Bill, any that we choose to apply must apply equally to ourselves. To reiterate my hon. Friend’s point, they also have to apply to our friends and anybody else associated with us. All of us in this House have a responsibility to rebuild the relationship and the trust between ourselves and the public.

The Crown Proceedings Act 1947 specifically talks about Crown liability in this regard. It states that the Crown can have application only if it is applied to private individuals as well, so this entire conversation has already been covered in previous legislation.

I thank the hon. Member for providing that clarity. That is good to hear, but it is important to put on the record that we in this House should apply the same rules to ourselves as we apply to our constituents.

Again, as a non-lawyer, I ask the Minister for some clarification on the implications of the non-criminal liability of the Crown in clause 47(2) and how that sits alongside the reference to

“persons in the service of the Crown”

in subsection (4). What I am seeking is consistency between what applies in the real world and what applies to the Crown. Perhaps the Minister could say what that provision means in laymen’s terms, so that I can say to my constituents that what we are applying to them also applies to us.

I want to add to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon. If you will forgive me, Sir Roger, I will be a bit parochial to illustrate the point. I said earlier that the Crown is quite a nebulous concept for a legislator, and where it begins and ends is difficult to understand. It is often taken to mean the state more broadly, but I have another example, from my constituency. Windsor Great Park is Crown Estate—the arm’s length Government body that the House has been legislating on in the past weeks—but the castle itself is owned and managed by the royal household. In my casework and when dealing with stakeholders, I often find that different rules apply to the Crown Estate and the royal household. The royal household seems to have much more personal control from the monarch, whereas the Crown Estate is very much run by the trustees, effectively on behalf of the Treasury.

It would be good to understand what we mean when we talk about the Crown. It is clear from my hon. Friend the shadow Minister’s remarks that we are talking about the palaces, but it would be good to know whether the clause applies to all these different arms of the British state in some way, shape or form, or whether other provisions apply to them.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful to hon. Members for their questions on these clauses, which are entirely technical and appertain to the treatment of the Crown in relation to the measures in the Bill. They follow a general Crown application, being broadly similar to, and mirroring pretty closely, the way other Acts of Parliament deal with the Crown. I am not sure whether the fact we have spent more than half an hour debating them shows Parliament at its best or at its niggliest, but we are having the debate none the less.

I take the Minister’s point that the clauses are technical, but if we are not here to ensure that legislation is drafted correctly and appropriately, what are we here for?

We are here to ensure that the Bill gets on the statute book. I was under the impression—perhaps the misapprehension—that at least the two Opposition Front Benchers, the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Sleaford and North Hykeham, were supportive of the measures in the Bill. If so, we seem to have spent an extraordinary amount of time discussing matters that do not really affect the Bill, except in relation to the Crown.

Will the Minister give way?

Perhaps the hon. Lady will let me finish. The measures are standard practice for any Bill, but Members have put some questions to me, so I will reassure them about some of the issues they have raised. But before doing so, I will give way to the shadow Minister, who has had plenty of time to talk about this matter.

I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon that the purpose of line-by-line scrutiny is to do just that: to go through the Bill line by line. The Minister’s job might be to get things on the statute book for his Prime Minister and Cabinet and for the Government in which he serves, but surely he wishes to ensure that the Bill he is leading on is in the best possible condition. That is the purpose of the line-by-line scrutiny that we are in Committee to do.

I absolutely do with that. The point I am making is that we have just over another week to deal with these matters. If we get to the end of next week not having considered important chunks of the Bill because we have wasted time on silly little matters that appertain not only to the whole of this legislation, but to other legislation as well, and on fairly standard clauses relating to how legislation deals with the Crown, that will be on His Majesty’s loyal Opposition.

I will make progress and answer the points that were made. Why are clauses 47 and 137 necessary parts of the Bill? The presumption is that legislation does not apply to the Crown unless expressly stated as doing so. The clauses clarify that provisions in parts 1 and 6 of the Bill, and in the regulations made under them, bind the Crown. They ensure that all bodies and persons acting as public servants of the Crown are held to the same standards as businesses and private citizens in England and Wales. They ensure consistent application of the Bill across the public and private sectors.

Does the Bill bind Parliament? Yes, it does. Parliament was consulted and was content with clause 159, in particular, being included. We have already had the debate about snuff, and it will be up to the House authorities to determine the rules of the House. There is absolutely nothing to prevent there being a box at the entrance to the Chamber with the latest chief Doorkeeper’s name engraved on it—that tradition can remain for evermore—just as we have a Smoking Room, which we can no longer smoke in but which is still called the Smoking Room. That is tradition. I really do not know why Members are overthinking these matters.

Members asked why there are differences between Crown applications in the devolved Administrations. As we have already discussed, the Bill brings together legislation from across the four nations. I believe it is a triumph, because it shows the close working relationship between the Labour Government and the devolved Administrations, irrespective of the parties in power in Cardiff Bay, Holyrood and Belfast. Because health is a devolved matter, and because the Bill builds on legislation dating back nearly 100 years in some cases, there are some differences in the provisions for each nation.

Members asked why only some parts of the Bill apply to the Crown. The fact is that clauses 47 and 134 explicitly provide that parts 1 and 6, and any regulations made under them, apply to the Crown. Other measures in the Bill also apply to the Crown without the Bill’s explicitly stating so because those provisions amend existing legislation, and the Crown application reflects whether the underlying legislation applies to the Crown.

There is an established precedent that smoke-free places legislation does not apply to the Crown in England and Wales, and that it is the responsibility of the Department responsible for running the relevant part of the Crown Estate to determine what is appropriate. That is precisely what the House of Commons did when it determined that the smoking ban would apply to the royal Palace of Westminster. The same is true of all the measures in the Bill.

Members asked which parts of the Bill will apply to the Crown. Part 1 and regulations made under it apply to the Crown by virtue of clause 47.

The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked about Northern Ireland. Part 3 amends existing legislation in Northern Ireland, and it does not apply to the Crown. That is an existing precedent, which the Department of Health in Northern Ireland wishes to retain. Part 2 amends the existing legislation in Scotland and part 1 amends the legislation in England and Wales. That is why there is a different approach to different parts of the United Kingdom in respect of the Crown.

Members asked why we need clause 66, the technical clause relating to the Scottish Government. It is because it corrects an omission in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, and it is being made at the request of the Scottish Government. It is a convention that in an Act of the Scottish Parliament those responsible for the enforcement of the legislation are explicitly identified as being able to make an application to the Court of Session for the purposes outlined in the clause. Scottish Ministers may take over enforcement under the 2010 Act, so it is appropriate that they are listed alongside local authorities, which is what clause 66 achieves. The clause inserts a provision into the 2010 Act, which is Scottish law. There are no impacts on the law in England, Wales or Northern Ireland. The clause is narrow and relates only to provisions in part 1 of the 2010 Act.

Members asked about overburdening the court. We are working the Ministry of Justice to ensure that the Bill does not introduce a significant burden. This is about regulatory change—and, look, most citizens are law abiding and will follow the law.

Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Notwithstanding that Division, which I chose to call, I should make it plain that I shall from now on be inclined to take decisions on the basis of the voices, which were pretty clear.

Clause 48

Interpretation of Part 1

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Clauses 49, 60, 63 and 64 stand part.

Schedule 8.

Clauses 83, 112, 113, 132 and 135 stand part.

This is quite a chunky group of clauses. Clause 48 provides a series of definitions that are to be used to interpret part 1. That is important; if the law is to be enforced, we must understand what the law means by each phrase it uses. The phrase “cigarette papers” is self-explanatory. It means anything that is

“used for encasing tobacco products or herbal smoking products for the purpose of enabling them to be smoked”.

We talked about cigarette papers previously. Likewise, “herbal smoking product”

“means a product consisting wholly or partly of vegetable matter and intended to be smoked but not containing tobacco”.

That is fairly straightforward.

The phrase “medical device” is important, and I will explain why in a moment. The clause refers to the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (S.I. 2002/618), which state that a medical device is

“any instrument, apparatus, appliance, material or other article, whether used alone or in combination, together with any…software…necessary for its proper application, which—

(a) is intended by the manufacturer to be used for human beings for the purpose of—

(i) diagnosis, prevention, monitoring, treatment or alleviation of disease,

(ii) diagnosis, monitoring, treatment, alleviation of or compensation for an injury or handicap,

(iii) investigation, replacement or modification of the anatomy or of a physiological process, or

(iv) control of conception; and

(b) does not achieve its principal intended action in or on the human body by pharmacological, immunological or metabolic means, even if it is assisted in its function by such means,

and includes devices intended to administer a medicinal product”—

this is part of why it is relevant—

“or which incorporate as an integral part a substance which, if used separately, would be a medicinal product and which is liable to act upon the body with action ancillary to that of the device.”

That is relevant to clause 10 onwards, on nicotine products.

In evidence on 7 January, Dr Laura Squire, from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, told the Committee that one vape product received an MHRA medicines licence in 2015, but was never marketed. Theoretically, others could be marketed in the future. They would be exempt under the definition provided in clause 48, which I have just explained.

I thank the shadow Minister for the points she has raised. Definitions are needed to ensure that the legislation can be interpreted with an appropriate understanding of the technical terms, and we have opted to take a co-ordinated approach to definitions across the four nations, which will hopefully ensure clarity for the public, retailers and enforcers.

As we know, nicotine is a highly addictive drug, particularly for adolescents whose brains are still developing. As mentioned in the Bill, a nicotine product means any device, part of a device, or substance containing nicotine that is intended to deliver nicotine to the human body. There are currently no age of sale or advertising restrictions for products such as nicotine pouches—and, unlike vapes, there are no set nicotine limits. Nicotine strengths can vary from 2 mg per pouch to, in some cases, 150 mg or more. Like vapes, they can come in a variety of flavours and colourful packaging designed to appeal to children. The use of nicotine products such as nicotine pouches is increasing, particularly among young men. As we are committed to doing everything we can to protect children from becoming addicted to nicotine, it is only right to take action to control these products.

On the point about nicotine pouches, it is of concern that they may be the next way in which this industry seeks to make our young people addicted to nicotine. We have seen in places such as Sweden a plethora of these products, which are now expanding across the UK as well. I know the Minister will be looking at some proposals to restrict the amount of nicotine in the pouches. When he does so, will he consider not just how much nicotine is in them compared with a cigarette, but how much is absorbed into the body? The amount in a cigarette that is absorbed as a proportion is much lower than that of a nicotine pouch.

Those are important considerations for when we are developing the regulations, and I take precisely the same view as the shadow Minister. These things have to be part of that overall analysis and equation when we come to look carefully at the regulations.

The shadow Minister asked a number of questions. First, she asked whether a provisional driving licence would be applicable, and the simple answer is that it would. She also asked whether there is a loophole here with medicinal products, and whether children could be restricted from purchasing vaping substances for a future vape that may have medicinal approvals. Of course, it is important to point out to the Committee that to date no such vape exists. As per all licensed medicines, if one existed, it would be regulated by medicine regulations, which are subject to higher standards set by the MHRA.

The health advice is that nicotine replacement treatment, for example, is most effective when provided alongside expert advice. That is really important, and that is why we are putting money into smoking cessation services and why measures in the Bill will permit the distribution of free vapes by the NHS and public health authorities; we think that is entirely appropriate.

There is no age of sale restriction for nicotine replacement therapies. In extreme circumstances, for example, were there a MHRA-approved vaping device that met the criteria of a medical device, I suppose the vaping liquid could be prescribed to a child if that were appropriate. That is all hypothetical because there is not such a device approved by the MHRA; therefore, there is not the loophole the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham thinks there might be, although she is right to raise it.

To clarify the point about there being no device available, that had been my understanding as well, but Dr Laura Squire from the MHRA said in evidence to the Committee that in 2015 a vape had been approved for medical use, but had never been marketed. Has the licence for that product lapsed in some way so that it is no longer available?

I do not know, but I will ensure the Committee is informed by officials. My point is that it is not marketed. Therefore, there is no medical device on the UK market, and all that is currently hypothetical. We have to legislate for the future, which is why I said that nicotine replacement therapy is the most appropriate form of treatment for children. Were there a device at some stage in the future that was available for the NHS to use in a medical context—as opposed to swap to stop—then it would be appropriate for a doctor to be able to prescribe that should they wish to. However, that would be within a highly regulated medical setting, as opposed to just getting liquids from a vape shop.

Clauses 48 and 49 exempt the medicinal product and medical devices. I understand why the Minister has done that, but how is he going to ensure that the industry does not find ways of making the nicotine replacement products that are currently legal and used only for medical purposes lemonade, gummy bear or unicorn milk-flavoured, and therefore attractive to children? The Committee has heard repeatedly about the way the industry behaves.

We absolutely have thought about that, which is why the measures in the Bill and the powers it gives to Ministers across the jurisdictions of the United Kingdom enable regulations to be made to ensure that we always keep up with where the industry is going and—importantly—where the evidence is going. This is not just about where the industry might go; it may be that at some stage in the future there is new medical research showing that even the levels we are talking about lowering to have safety issues, and we will need to react to that.

That is why I will defend the way the Bill has been drafted, ensuring that Ministers will be able, at any stage in the future, to return to Parliament or the devolved legislatures to seek changes to secondary legislation to ensure that the measures are always relevant to the circumstances of the day.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 48 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

I apologise to the Committee; this is quite complex, even by my standards. Amendments 25 to 31 were debated under clause 1. The lead amendment, which was similar, was negatived by the Committee on a Division, and so I am not selecting them for a separate Division. That is in my gift.

Amendment proposed: 67, in clause 50, page 25, line 34, at end insert—

“(ba) in subsection (5), at end insert “, save if it is a first offence.”

(bb) after subsection (5) insert—

‘(5A) A person who has admitted guilt of a first offence under subsection (1) is liable to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale or a recorded police warning.’”—(Dr Johnson.)

This amendment prevents penalties for a first offence of selling tobacco products to person under 18 in Scotland being a fine not beyond level 3 and provides for a discretionary recorded police warning.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

With this it will be convenient to consider clause 53 stand part.

Clause 52 repeals the offence of purchasing tobacco under 18 in Scotland, as per the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010; clause 52(2) would omit section 5, concerning purchasing tobacco products by people under the age of 18, from the 2010 Act. This is a reasonable thing to do, because clause 50 replaces the current age of sale with the rolling age of sale and extends to those over 18.

However, subsection (3) of clause 52 is interesting, because it refers to the presumption of products in the contents of a container. Section 33 of the 2010 Act essentially says if a person has seen someone sell a packet of cigarettes to somebody, and the person can clearly see the packet of cigarettes, they do not have to prove that it contains cigarettes; they just have to see it. I suppose that prevents people from the defence of saying that they were selling empty boxes, that it was just role play, that the boxes only contain sweets, or that they do not really contain tobacco—they are just boxes. In some respects, those are fairly implausible defences, but perhaps those defending them could prove reasonable doubt on that basis. Section 33 presumes that cigar boxes contain cigars, for example, or that cigarette boxes contain cigarettes; in the context of their being bought that seems fairly obvious, but it is interesting that the Scots felt it necessary to have this section previously.

I respect that this is a devolved matter and the Scots’ wishes to amend section 33 of the 2010 Act, but could the Minister perhaps explain, from the conversations that I am sure he has had with Ministers in Scotland, why the Scots introduced it in the first place? Was it perceived that it might be an issue, or was it actually an issue that people were pretending or suggesting that what was in boxes of cigarettes was not cigarettes, and therefore, “It’s not illegal to sell a box; it’s only illegal to sell the cigarettes in it, and you can’t prove they were there, your honour.”?

Why has the Minister not chosen to replicate such a provision in England? Although I respect what he says about devolution, and the Scots have the competency to do as they wish in Scotland, in England it is up to him and he has the levers of power. Can he say in the rest of the UK where this defence has been used before? Has section 33 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 ever been used as a defence in litigation? If it has, was it successful? If it was, why does he not want to replicate the provision in England? It is a somewhat peculiar situation.

In answer to the shadow Minister, clause 52 will repeal the offence for someone under the age of 18 in Scotland of buying or attempting to buy a tobacco product or cigarette papers. It means that it will no longer be an offence for someone under the age of 18 to buy or attempt to buy those products in Scotland. That is because Scotland is the only part of the United Kingdom in which it is an offence for those under 18 to purchase tobacco products. The repeal will align the legal approach across the whole United Kingdom. It is being done after consultation and with the full consent of the Scottish Government. With the change to the age of sale, it was no longer deemed necessary to retain this provision, as the age-of-sale restrictions apply to the sale and not the purchase of tobacco products.

Clause 53 will repeal the power for constables in Scotland to confiscate tobacco products or cigarette papers from someone in a public place whom they suspect to be under 18. Both provisions were originally made in the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010. Repealing them will ensure that legislation in Scotland is in line with legislation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. With the change to the age of sale, it was no longer considered necessary to retain the provision, as age-of-sale restrictions apply to the sale and not the purchase of tobacco products. As we have already debated, that will ensure that we do not criminalise children.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 52 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54

Extension of tobacco legislation to herbal smoking products

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 will extend tobacco legislation to cover herbal smoking products, which are products made from plant material and intended for smoking that do not contain tobacco. It will amend section 4 of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act, which governs the sale of tobacco products to individuals under 18, by inserting “herbal smoking product” after “tobacco product” in subsection (1). This will mean that the sale of herbal smoking products is subject to the same restrictions as tobacco products and is prohibited to persons under 18.

The clause will also amend section 4C of the 2010 Act, which deals with the sale of tobacco-related products by persons under 18, by adding “herbal smoking product” so that individuals under 18 are also prohibited from selling herbal smoking products. This is distinct from the ability to buy them, for which there will be a rolling age; it applies to the selling of these products.

The clause will also modify section 6 of the Act, which addresses the purchase of tobacco products on behalf of individuals under 18, otherwise known as proxy purchasing. It will amend subsection (1) by inserting “herbal smoking product” after “tobacco product”, making it illegal for anyone to purchase herbal smoking products on behalf of individuals under 18.

Finally, the clause will insert into section 35 a definition for herbal smoking products. This was covered in clause 48 and clause 1; clause 54 will add it to Scottish legislation. It specifies that a herbal smoking product is one that is made entirely or partially of vegetable matter and that is intended to be smoked, but that does not contain tobacco. Given our previous debate, these seem reasonable changes to make.

I will not detain the Committee on this question. As the shadow Minister says, these are reasonable changes to make and are in line with the clauses that we have just discussed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 55 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58

Possession of snus etc with intent to supply

Amendment proposed: 70, in clause 58, page 29, line 19, at end insert

“, save if it is a first offence.”—(Dr Johnson.)

See explanatory statement to Amendment 72.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 9.

Clause 65 introduces schedule 9, which will amend the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010 to broaden the scope of the retailer register and make related provisions to include herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products, alongside tobacco. The amendments that it makes aim to regulate businesses that sell those products in a similar way to tobacco products.

Essentially, in schedule 9, the key changes are as follows. There will be an expansion of the register: section 10 of the 2010 Act will be amended to require the Scottish Ministers to maintain a register of businesses that are selling tobacco, herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products. It will ensure that all those categories are subject to the same regulatory framework as respects the register.

There is clarification within the schedule of a “registrable business”, which is now defined to include any businesses dealing with tobacco, herbal smoking, vaping or nicotine products. The term is used throughout the Act, ensuring that all relevant businesses are captured under the regulations.

The amendments that schedule 9 will make to section 11 of the 2010 Act require applicants to specify which type of registrable business they intend to operate at each premises —essentially, which products they wish to sell. Can the Minister confirm that that means that some businesses could register to sell some products but not others under the Act? Perhaps they could sell tobacco products but not nicotine products, or vice versa. The registration process will be updated to reflect those additions.

Section 12 of the 2010 Act, which deals with certifications and notifications, will be amended to require certificates of registration to specify the type of product that a business sells. Additionally, under section 13, businesses must notify the Scottish Ministers of any changes, such as if they no longer desire to sell a specific type of registrable product. The Act’s provisions concerning banning orders, offences and public inspection of the register will be updated to reflect the inclusion of herbal smoking products, vaping products and nicotine products alongside tobacco products.

In addition, schedule 9 will add new definitions, including of “herbal smoking product business” and “nicotine product business”, ensuring clarity in the application of the law.

I welcome the shadow Minister’s comments. Of course, health is a devolved matter. Scotland has a long-established and functioning register of tobacco and nicotine vape product retailers. The Bill will expand Scotland’s registration scheme to include retailers selling herbal smoking products and nicotine products. The Scottish Government’s view is that introducing a licensing scheme at this time would put undue pressure on local authorities and the retail sector in Scotland. In line with the Scottish Government’s tobacco and vaping framework, the technical infrastructure of the register is being improved, which has been welcomed by stakeholders. Each of the nations of the United Kingdom is taking forward an approach that best suits its population.

On a point of order, Sir Roger. There is an hon. Member outside who wishes to come in. I know that the doors have been locked for these Divisions, but is it possible to open the doors so that he can come in and vote on the rest of the motions?

It is up to the Whips to let the Chair know if there are Members who they want to be here. Otherwise, I will assume that everyone who should be here is here.

Clause 77

Purchase of vaping or nicotine products on behalf of under 18s

Amendment proposed: 82, in clause 77, page 40, line 22, at end insert

“, save if it is a first offence.”—(Dr Johnson.)

See explanatory statement to Amendment 83.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 10.

Clause 84 is a short clause that extends the retail register provisions in Northern Ireland. It states:

“Schedule 10 amends the Tobacco Retailers Act (Northern Ireland) 2014 (c. 4 (N.I.)) to extend certain provisions about the registration of tobacco retailers so that they apply in relation to retailers of vaping products and nicotine products.”

Schedule 10 ensures that retailers selling tobacco products, herbal smoking products and cigarette papers are covered by the scheme.

As the shadow Minister says, the clause extends the existing registration scheme by expanding it to businesses that sell relevant products. The register will be expanded while the new licensing regulations are introduced, ensuring a stronger and consistent enforcement regime at all times.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 84 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 10 agreed to.

Clause 85 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedules 11 to 13 agreed to.

Clauses 86 and 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 14 and 15 agreed to.

Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89

Power of officer of Revenue and Customs to seize and detain snus etc

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89 is such an important clause in that it forms a whole part of the Bill, part 4, by itself; whereas other parts contain multiple clauses, part 4 only contains clause 89. The clause deals with the power of a Revenue and Customs official to seize and detain snus, which the Bill defines as an oral tobacco product that

“is not intended to be inhaled or chewed”.

Hon. Members will remember that snus is a tobacco product that the Bill treats differently from all other tobacco products; there is a much heftier penalty for sale and a complete ban on manufacture. In line with the fact that it is dealt with differently from other tobacco products and that it will be illegal to manufacture and import, there needs to be provision for customs officials to deal with the snus if they find it.

Subsection (1) allows a Revenue and Customs officer to

“seize any relevant oral tobacco products that have been imported and detain them for no more than 48 hours.”

I presume that 48 hours is standard; the Minister may be able to expand on that. Any products seized and detained under this clause

“must be dealt with during their period of detention in such manner as the Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs may direct…For the purposes of calculating the 48-hour period mentioned…any period falling on a non-working day is to be disregarded.”

The Minister will be able to confirm, but I presume that is essentially saying that, if a product were seized on a Friday at 4.50 pm, they would get all of Saturday and Sunday and until late on the Tuesday to deal with the snus and would be able to seize it for that period.

The clause says that non-working days are Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays; that is fairly straightforward. A relevant offence is an offence under clause 9 of the Bill in England and Wales, section 9C of the Tobacco and Primary Medical Services (Scotland) Act 2010, which is inserted by the Bill, and article 4G of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1978, which is also inserted by the Bill.

The shadow Minister quite rightly asked the Minister why there is a 48-hour period; it would be helpful to understand if that is just a standard period. What I am not clear on is what happens during, or indeed after, that period. Is the 48-hour period for some kind of destruction of the illicit substance? Is it for investigation? If His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs for whatever reason breaches the 48-hour period, what recompense can the importer receive? Should they receive any kind of recompense, given that they are likely to be importing a banned substance?

My hon. Friend is right to probe the Minister on those questions. It is important to understand why things are chosen. The Minister has sometimes referred to things being chosen because that is the way they were before, but the writing of new primary legislation offers a not-frequent opportunity to change things that may not be working very well. When items are seized at the moment, is the Minister’s advice from his civil servants that 48 hours is an adequate period of time in which to deal with all the paperwork that presumably needs to be done? Is it too long, and could it be shorter if it needed to be?

The commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs are responsible for dealing with the relevant oral tobacco product during the period of detention, but that will not prevent the importation of snus for personal use. Can the Minister explain why that is the case?

It is not illegal to consume snus in the UK—I got told off for pronouncing that in Mancunian as “snuss” earlier, but each to their own—or to possess it for personal use. Clause 89 is that is intended to form part of a robust legislative framework in relation to oral tobacco products, and specifically helps to enforce other provisions of the Bill that prohibit possession with intent to supply in the course of business. It is common practice for customs officials to seize suspected illicit goods at the border. That will now also be applicable to snus products imported into the UK. The 48-hour period is standard practice, but after 48 hours the enforcement agency is able to decide on what action it wishes to take. I hope that answers the points raised by the shadow Minister and the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon.

I want to understand how a customs official would make such a decision. The Minister has been clear that it is not illegal to possess snus—I hope I pronounced that properly—for personal use. However, it is an offence to manufacture it under clause 7, to sell it or offer it for sale under clause 8 or to possess it with intent to supply under clause 9. How would the Minister quantify an amount for personal use? Under ordinary circumstances, one could say—

We are now sitting in public and proceedings are being broadcast. Today, we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider a motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication, and a motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral evidence sessions. In view of the time available, I hope that we can take these matters formally, without debate. I will first call the Minister to move the programme motion standing in her name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee for the Bill.

Ordered,

That—

1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 9.25 am on Tuesday 21 January) meet—

(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 January;

(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 January;

(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 28 January;

(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 30 January;

(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 4 February;

(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 6 February;

(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 11 February;

2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:

3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 29; Schedule 1; Clauses 30 to 54; Schedule 2; Clauses 55 to 60; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;

4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Tuesday 11 February.—(Catherine McKinnell.)

Resolved,

That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication. —(Catherine McKinnell.)

Resolved,

That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Catherine McKinnell.)

The Committee deliberated in private.

Examination of Witnesses

Dr Carol Homden and Anne Longfield gave evidence.

We are now sitting in public again and the proceedings are being broadcast. Do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests?

For the record, NAHT—National Association of Head Teachers—was my previous employer, before I came to this place.

For the record, I am still a Lancashire county councillor. The council has responsibility for children’s services.

Currently, I am a member of a union and was a workplace representative for a school before being elected.

If any interests are particularly relevant to a Member’s question or speech, they should declare them again at the appropriate time.

We will now hear oral evidence from Dr Carol Homden, chief executive officer for Coram, and Anne Longfield, executive chair of the Centre for Young Lives. Will you briefly introduce yourselves and say a word or two about your work before we start any questioning?

Anne Longfield: My name is Anne Longfield. I am a newly appointed Labour peer—I should probably declare that. I have campaigned on children’s issues for many decades, as several around this table will know. Many of the measures in the Bill are things that I have actively advocated for during the past 15 years-plus—for some of them, such as breakfast clubs, double the amount of time, and for the register, half that amount of time. Most of my work and interests are around early intervention, supporting the most vulnerable children and helping children and their families to thrive.

Dr Homden: Good morning; I am Carol Homden. I am the group chief executive of Coram, which is the first and longest-continuing children’s charity, and today a group of specialist organisations dedicated to the legal and practical support of the rights and welfare of children. The evidence that I shall present to you is based on our direct work in legal advice and advocacy services, care planning, placement and personal social and health education across 2,800 schools, as well as the extensive research conducted with young people by the Coram Institute for Children.

Broadly, Coram welcomes the provisions of the Bill, but calls for specific extension and amendments, to increase focus on the timescales and needs of our youngest children, and to strengthen its responsiveness to the priorities of children and young people themselves for improved wellbeing support, and particularly access to advocacy; and overall, believes that the outcomes for children should be our central purpose rather than preferences for outcomes for the system.

Thank you. We will start our questioning.

Q The first question is for Dr Homden. You talked about some of the things in the Bill that you would like to see amended. I wonder whether you could expand on that, and particularly your point about the timeliness of intervention.

Dr Homden: Particularly, we are concerned that some of the very sensible provisions in the Bill, such as breakfast clubs, are not extended to infants in the early years. There are a number of areas where early years extension would be appropriate, so while we recognise that this is a Bill on children’s wellbeing and schools, none the less the children’s wellbeing elements for the youngest children are particularly important—especially the opportunities for children to receive free meals, and also for the extension of admissions priority. The provisions for the extension of recognition of quality for teaching staff could and should be extended to early years workforce issues.

The second key area is the fact that there are no provisions in relation to children’s access to advocacy—particularly 16 and 17-year-olds, those who are excluded from school, and those who face other forms of crisis in, for example, unregulated accommodation. While others will call for broader extensions of advocacy, these are the focus areas that we would recommend and commend to you as being the most effective ways to ensure that young people have the information they need to exercise decision making, and that they can hold the system to account.

Q I have follow-up questions specifically about some of the measures in the Bill about family group decision making—a thing that a lot of people generally are very supportive of. My only slight concern about it is at what stage in the process that happens, and whether, if it is at the point where you are seeking a court order, that is possibly too late in the process, where it is no longer voluntary or consensual. I wonder whether you thought we should look at bringing that forward in the process, or—you mentioned young children—whether it is something that needs to happen much earlier, particularly for the under-twos and the particularly vulnerable child in dangerous households.

Dr Homden: That is indeed an extremely valid point. Many local authorities will offer family group decision making support prior to pre-proceedings, and it is important that the new duty introduced does not take away earlier opportunities to extend the involvement of the family network when children’s services are involved. Timescales are indeed acknowledged to be of critical importance in family law, and statutory guidance should make it clear that nothing in the family group decision making requirement, or the provisions of the Bill, should slow down processes, or delay solutions for babies and children.

Overall, we support the promotion of the family first decision-making approach, but point out that while we understand that it is the preference not to specify a particular model, the evidence from the randomised control trial that Coram conducted is in relation to family group conferencing, and that evidence shows very clearly the importance of independent support, and of consistent and sufficient practice. So we do call upon the consideration of the ways in which there would be a strengthening of consistency and quality of approach to ensure that this really meets the needs of children and families.

It is also worth remembering that family group decision making will not necessarily divert children from care. There has been a significant increase in kinship foster placements, now representing 19% of all active households, but all our casework in the Coram Children’s Legal Centre demonstrates that family group conferencing and well-delivered family group decision making most certainly help.

Anne Longfield: I will briefly add my support on that. There is widespread support for upholding the principles of family group conferencing. In my experience, that intervention can transform children’s and families’ experience at that point and avert decisions being made about them without their involvement, including children, but it has to be done properly. We all want families to be involved, but this is around a process of involving families and children in solutions. That will have a point that it needs to get over, in terms of the mechanisms around it and the actual formality of that. So there is something there that there is widespread support for strengthening.

Q Do you share, Dr Homden, the concern that we should be very clear that this should not delay decision making?

Dr Homden: Absolutely.

This is a reminder to Members that is important to catch the Clerk’s eye if you want to ask a question. We will try to get everybody in during the morning and give everybody the same crack of the whip. I will now call the Minister to ask questions.

Q Good morning. The first question is to you, Carol. On introduction of the Bill, Coram said:

“This Bill presents a new opportunity for services and agencies supporting vulnerable children to work together and make this a reality.”

Will you outline the key measures that you feel support that in the Bill?

Dr Homden: Clearly, there are a number of ways in which the Bill seeks to do that. Quite often what we are looking for here is a strengthening of approaches that reinforce integrated working in local arrangements. There is a question in our mind, which you have clearly considered, about whether it is essential for education to be treated as a core partner in safeguarding. Our consideration is that under article 4 of the European convention on human rights, schools have a protective duty, but this should not diminish the clarity and reinforcement of the importance of roles being defined locally and of the activation of best practice in those circumstances.

I repeat that in many areas, and especially in relation to school exclusion, where it is particularly critical that the roles of schools are appreciated in relation to criminal exploitation, our suggestion to you is that direct access to advocacy for these young people may be a more timely and potentially more sufficient approach, to complement local arrangements in supporting young people’s safeguarding.

Q What consideration have you given to the impact that creating a duty for safeguarding partners to make arrangements to establish multi-agency child protection teams will have?

Dr Homden: Having a duty most generally would be reinforcement of the fact that these arrangements are expected and required. The duty does not in itself necessarily prejudge the nature of those local arrangements, but it does place a really clear focus on the need to have those arrangements and to make sure that they are functioning properly. We would be pleased to send you some additional reflections on that, if that would be helpful.

I do want to raise one point in relation to safeguarding, which is that we are concerned because the Bill does present an important opportunity, potentially, to remove the defence of reasonable chastisement for children, and in our view, this opportunity should not be missed.

Q Anne, the Centre for Young Lives has welcomed the Bill, stating:

“It addresses issues we have been very concerned about over many years, including vulnerable children falling through the gaps and into danger.”

Will you elaborate on how you feel the Bill better protects children and keeps them safe?

Anne Longfield: I am pleased to say that safeguarding does clearly run through the whole Bill. Engagement in the kind of activities around school in the community is one of the ways that children will be safeguarded. The register is something that I campaigned for and has been committed to for some time, so I am very pleased to see that in there. It is not a silver bullet when it comes to children who are out of school, because they are often out of school for a reason and that does not divert from the root causes. But none the less, that is a very welcome move.

On the link between poverty and non-attendance in school, in our experience there is a great link to parents being very worried about not being able to afford branded uniform. That, again, is supported in the Bill. There are various measures around children’s social care as well, including the partnerships that we have just discussed.

There is a clear reset around early intervention, which we very much welcome, and around a much greater co-ordination and relationship between schools—whatever their structures—and local partners. That can only add to the safety of children. There is a lot of interest in the potential to add a wellbeing measure, which would further strengthen the Bill’s ability to be able to identify those children who are vulnerable, and enable those partnerships and services to be able to respond. That would be a very welcome addition.

That would also support the whole ambition around belonging for children. For those children who are falling through the gaps, it would give them an opportunity to have their voices heard. I am thinking, for example, about the almost a million children who end up NEET—not in education, employment or training. None of us wants to see that for them at that early age. Their involvement in advocating for their own experience of careers and other services would be very welcome. That is part of the engine that would drive many of the ambitions in the Bill, so that addition in itself would be very much welcomed.

Dr Homden: I would support that. Coram also supports the introduction of the register for home-educated pupils as the critical protection to children’s right to education and safeguarding. That should include children with special educational needs and disabilities, since all too often, home education feels like the only option available in the context of risks to the child from their anxiety, self-harm or bullying and, where appropriate, school places being not available or, commonly, not resourced.

We would also further support the reintroduction of the national adoption register to ensure that all children waiting receive a proactive matching service without sequential, geographical or financial decision making being involved in that.

I reinforce and support what Anne said about the importance of measurements of wellbeing. It is clear from our research that young people’s wellbeing is associated with being included in decision making. That needs to be thought about in relation to the family group decision-making process for older young people. It gives them a much greater sense of traction and optimism for the future.

My main objective is to try to get all the Back Benchers in, so we want crisp questions. It is very important that everybody feels they can get in. I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.

Q You have both referred to wellbeing. The Bill is called the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill, but there is precious little in it on wellbeing. Other than measurement and making sure that children’s voices are at the forefront, what more can we be pressing the Government for on wellbeing in the Bill?

Anne Longfield: There are some very well-established wellbeing measures, such as Be Well, operating in many areas. They are cost-effective and demonstrate what can be achieved with better understanding and information about children’s needs. We will potentially have the unique identifier, which is important within that. Overall, the wellbeing measure would seek to identify which children were vulnerable, which were happy and thriving within their community and school, and which were in need of early help, especially around mental health and other support. It would enable services to understand where they needed to prioritise their resources. You cannot prioritise your response to children’s needs unless you know which children are in need. As I say, it would create the engine for many of the outcomes that the Bill is seeking to deliver.

Q Dr Homden, you have talked about the lack of provision for children with special educational needs. What do you make of the power in the Bill for local authorities to refuse parents the right to withdraw their children from a special school to home educate if they do not feel that the special school is meeting their children’s needs?

Dr Homden: That is a really complex area to consider because of the circumstances of individual children such as my own child, who was not withdrawn from school but had no available provision for two years of his school life despite being fully known and documented. I sympathise with parents who feel that the risks facing their child in a setting, as well as out of a setting, might lead them to that position. I sympathise strongly with the driver within the Bill, but much more consideration needs to be given to that question because of the lack of provision. At Coram children’s legal centre, we are constantly representing parents where there is significant failure to fulfil the education, health and care plan, which is a child’s right and entitlement.

Q Anne, you said that family group decision making can be fantastic if done well. What are your thoughts about how prescriptive the statutory guidance should be on the format of those family group decision meetings?

Anne Longfield: It has to be. If this is to be the cornerstone of our ability to move towards a kinship model, intervene earlier and get alongside families, it has to work properly. All the evidence is based on a full family group conferencing system. Of course, you would want to take any opportunity to work around families, but this is about planning, being there at the right time and having the involvement of children and families. That is not something that local authorities themselves can decide on.

It is also about the commitment to do something with it. Without that, it could just be a meeting with families, which would be an absolute missed opportunity. I am not a specialist in this; I went along and found family group conferencing about 12 or 15 years ago. I used to call them magic meetings. Out of nowhere came solutions that changed people’s lives. I do not want to become too enthused, but it has to be done right, and the principles need to be seen through.

Q You have enthused about family group decision making. Do you think it would be useful at other stages in the process, particularly in approaching families for unification at the point of discharge for care leavers?

Dr Homden: Yes, we would support that. We would also call for specific coverage in the statutory guidance on how children with family members abroad can benefit, and for consideration in that guidance on contact, particularly with siblings.

Anne Longfield: I would also look at the mechanism at other points, such as when children are at risk of becoming involved in crime and the like. But for now, yes.

Q I would like to ask about the requirement for local authorities to offer Staying Close. We have seen some success with that in Southampton, but from the direct work of both your organisations, do you think that the Staying Close offer meets the most pressing needs of care leavers, or are there other things that the Bill should consider?

Anne Longfield: Carol will probably talk about the detail more than I will, but in principle it was a really important change to be made and a really important commitment. Young people I have met have appreciated it and seen the value of it. I do not think it is yet at the point where most care leavers would say that it is meeting all their ambitions, nor of course is it anywhere. Having it as part of the Bill, to extend and strengthen it, is important, but it is there to be built on. We know from the outcomes for young people leaving care that it is crucial that that level of stability and support is in place.

Dr Homden: We support the extension of support to care leavers in the Bill. Provisions need to ensure greater consistency across the country in the support that is offered. It is important that the introduction of Staying Close provisions in this case will be offered to care leavers only where the authority assesses that such support is required. It is also important that that does not dilute the role and responsibilities of personal advisers. Young people speak very passionately in our Bright Spots surveys about the importance of the emotional and practical support that they provide. We must take care that that is not undermined.

Staying Close must mean what is close for the individual. This also extends to the legal duties to publish a local offer, which already exist, but really the question is whether we can achieve greater consistency and transparency for young people. For example, our young people in A National Voice, the national council for children in care, have been campaigning on the fact that almost two years after the Department for Education announced the increase for their setting up home grants, 10% of local authorities are still not applying it. All too often, these young people therefore experience a form of postcode lottery. Finally, our research has shown huge disparity in relation to the appreciation of levels of disability and long-term health conditions among care leavers. This needs to be a key area of focus.

Q Family group decision making is a well-evidenced practice, yet this Bill mandates it. Do we really need a Bill to mandate it, especially considering that a lot of children come into these situations when they are at risk of neglect from their carers? Cannot the virtue and the hope of this amendment, and the idea of family group decision making, be instructed through guidance? Does it need to be mandated through a Bill?

Anne Longfield: I think it does need to be mandated, because it is at the cornerstone of the different way of working. It is about intervening earlier. The majority of families in that situation are living with adversity and are not coping with adversity. The whole ambition behind this is to bring in not only parents, but families around them and others.

Q What about children who are at risk of neglect at the hands of the carer? Do you think family group decision making is an appropriate step that a child safeguarding team should be mandated to practise at that point?

Anne Longfield: I think a mandate makes a very clear distinction in terms of a route of travel. It is well evidenced. Carol will talk about the risks to families and to children, but it is the broader family and in some cases the other support network—

Order. I am going to interrupt you there, as we still have two more people to get in.

Q It is clear that we need strong partnerships to stop children slipping through the cracks, which happens far too often. What do you think will be the impact of creating the duty of safeguarding for partnerships to establish the multi-agency child protection teams? What lessons must we learn?

Dr Homden: I think we will need to send you a further briefing on that point, beyond what I have already said. The point is that if there is a duty, you are creating a framework within which there is much stronger accountability, assuming that it is carefully inspected, considered and acted on if it is not implemented.

I sympathise with the previous point. The welfare of the child is paramount and local authorities have an absolute duty to act, irrespective of any other duties on them, to ensure the safety of a child in acute circumstances. But the Bill protects that and makes that clear. Mandating family group decision making makes sure that best practice, in time, becomes the only practice.

Q In your view, are the measures in the Bill proportionate for improving child safeguarding and protecting children? Local authorities’ spend on looked-after children in the past decade or so has increased from about £3.5 billion to over £8 billion a year. Will the measures in the Bill help to address that and bring it down?

Anne Longfield: I would say that they will begin to address that and bring it down. We are in quite an extreme situation. We know that the level of spend on children in care is very high and that it is not sustainable for any of us, for the public purse. We also know that it does not lead to the best outcomes for a lot of children. If early intervention had been in place, it could have been a very different situation.

I think it is proportionate for a first stage. There is much more that can be done, and there are things we could put in around interventions, play sufficiency, mental health support, children’s centres and family hubs that could extend that into something that can get beyond this first stage.

Q So your view is not that it goes too far, but that in some cases it does not go far enough?

Anne Longfield: I think it is proportionate for now, but it needs to be strengthened in some areas if we are to tackle some of the deep-rooted issues that we know a lot of children are facing.

Q What about the overall spend?

Anne Longfield: The only way to get around the spend in local authorities on children’s social care is to reduce those costs. I do not think that that is to deny children’s needs; it is about a different way. We know that the spending on early intervention has almost halved over the past decade, while the cost of crisis has doubled. A lot of the cost is residential provision for older children. There needs to be a focus on where we can intervene early and find alternative solutions with families.

Q Before I was elected, I ran a domestic abuse and mental health charity, so I can definitely speak to the value of the mandate, even in a local authority setting, which was excellent. Anne, are the other measures in the Bill proportionate to the aim of driving local integration and making sure that the child is at the centre of all decision making?

Anne Longfield: There are a number of other interventions that we could include that would strengthen children’s participation and children’s being at the centre of their communities. One of those is around children’s play. We know that children’s access to play has reduced dramatically over recent years. Play is the thing that children say they want: it is at the top of their list. We were very worried about access to play and the dominance of social media in children’s lives. Wales introduced a play sufficiency duty in 2010. It was not a huge cost. It meant that local authorities had to plan for play and respond to play. That kind of strategy would be, for a first stage, a very cost-effective way of reflecting children’s needs in the community.

Q We talked earlier about the measurement of wellbeing. There are surveys of children’s wellbeing by various organisations now: the Office of the Children’s Commissioner—your old office, Anne—does something, the King’s Trust does something, UNICEF has done an international survey and so on. What would the output of the surveys you envisage be used for?

Could you also say a word or two about the mental health of children and young people survey, wave 4 of which was most recently published by the NHS and the future of which is uncertain? Would you like to see that series of surveying and reporting carried on?

Dr Homden: Yes, we would. It is incredibly important that we are able to account for the implementation and for whether the Bill actually helps us to improve children’s wellbeing. It is also extremely important that that happens systematically across local services and in any area in which we can respond and adapt services to meet the needs of children. Generally, we feel that it is extremely important that wellbeing measurement is advanced and made more systematic and consistent.

That brings us to the end of this session. I thank our witnesses.

Examination of Witnesses

Andy Smith and Ruth Stanier gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from two more witnesses. We must stick to the timings: this session must end at 10.30 am. Will you briefly introduce yourselves, please?

Andy Smith: My name is Andy Smith. I am the president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services. In my day job, I am director of children’s services and adult social services in Derby.

Ruth Stanier: I am Ruth Stanier, assistant policy director at the Local Government Association.

Q Thank you for coming. We have an important principle in local government called the new burdens doctrine, which is that if the Government put a burden on local government, they pay for it. Given the various new duties and obligations that the Bill will place on local government, do you agree that that principle should be followed and that local government should be funded to implement those duties? Secondly, what is your understanding of the current situation? Is funding being offered to implement the duties in the Bill?

Ruth Stanier: Thank you for those extremely important questions. We very much welcome many of the measures in this Bill, which we have long been calling for, but they must be appropriately resourced to have the impact that we want.

Q Would you like to see resourcing clearly specified in this Bill?

Ruth Stanier: You are absolutely right that the new burdens doctrine must be applied in the usual way. There are a number of measures in this Bill for which additional funding will be required, for example the new multi-agency units. We are encouraged that at this stage we are already having early discussions with the Department about the implementation arrangements. We are yet to undertake the full cost estimates, but that work will be set in train with the Department.

Q That is very helpful. Clause 18 provides for regulations to be made on agency workers and their pay. We would all like to spend less on all these different things, but even though we might be sympathetic to the ideas in the Bill, do you agree that if we just cap prices without taking action on supply, it will fail, because the underlying cause of the high prices has everything to do with supply and planning over time?

Andy Smith: You have to cover both. It has been incredibly important and positive that the Government have taken forward measures to tackle the cost of agency workers. We are seeing the impact of the measures that have taken place already. For example, on Friday in my region we were talking about the implications and impact of the changes that have started to be implemented. We are seeing less churn of workers from one authority to another; we are also seeing some agency workers move over to the permanent books of councils, which is better for children.

It is also important to ensure that we have a sufficient approach and strategy for the workforce generally. That covers all elements of the Bill, so it would include social work but also other professions and other agencies where we have particular challenges. Yes, we absolutely need to focus on the recruitment and retention of social workers as well as tackling the costs of agency workers. I believe that that is already under way and is making some impact.

Q Are there any other ways in which you would like to see the Bill amended?

Andy Smith: I think some things are missing from the Bill. There are some things that will be positive; no doubt we will come to those. What was disappointing, from the policy paper to where we are now, was the lack of corporate parenting: we would have expected to see all Government Departments committing to corporate parenting. We see that lack as a real disappointment, actually. It feels like a once-in-a-generation time for us to focus on the wider responsibility that all Departments should have for our children in care, so that is a particular gap in the Bill.

Ruth Stanier: I very much agree on extending the corporate parenting duty—this must be the right time and the right Bill to do that, and the Government have already committed to doing so in a recent policy paper, so it is really important we get that included. We were also disappointed that the Bill does not have powers for Ofsted to inspect multi-academy trusts, which was a Government election manifesto commitment. We support the similar new powers relating to care placement providers, but in respect of trusts that is an omission.

I am sure you will want to come on to discuss the elective home education provisions. We do support those, but there could be scope for them to go further. In an ideal world, councils would have the power to visit any child where there were concerns. Obviously, that would need to be appropriately resourced, but there could be scope to go further on that provision.

Q Thank you both for being witnesses before the Committee. A question to you both: what impact will the Bill have on children and their families entering, or at risk of entering, the children’s social care system?

Andy Smith: A strength in the Bill is the focus on family help and early intervention. We talk a lot about the cost of the care system, but we need to see this in a much more strategic context and sense. We know that there is a lot of evidence. We published research last week showing that for councils that have been able to invest and maintain early help services, it has a direct impact on reducing the number of children coming into the more statutory end of things within children’s social care or the looked-after children service.

The challenge is that we have real variability around early help services across the country, because of the difficulties there have been with council budgets over the past 10 years. Seeing these reforms and the focus on family help in its totality—this goes back to the earlier question about the funding required to implement the reforms—will make a positive impact. It is ultimately better for children to remain with their families. If not, there is a big focus on kinship care, where children remain in the family network. That is a real strength in the Bill.

Ruth Stanier: I completely agree with that. We very much support the measures on support for kinship families. We think that is a very important area.

Q How do local authorities currently discharge their duty to ensure that children receive a suitable education? What impact will the measures in the Bill have on this?

Ruth Stanier: We very much support the new duty to co-operate across councils and all schools. It is something we have long been calling for. Of course, councils continue to have duties to ensure that there is appropriate education for every child in local places. Having the statutory underpinning set out in the Bill on co-operation across all schools is so important, particularly when we are thinking about councils’ duties in respect of SEND, where the system is under enormous strain, as was illustrated by an important report we commissioned jointly with the county councils network last year. We very much welcome those measures in the Bill.

Andy Smith: The education system in England is increasingly fragmented and lacks coherence. We see the role of the local authority essentially eroded, even though our duties have not changed that much. The measures in the Bill will be helpful in trying to bring some of that coherence back and in recognising the role of the local authority on directing academies, school place planning and admissions. The current system works for some children but not all. Trying to rebalance that is a positive step forward.

Q The register of children not in school is supported by many parties and organisations, but under clause 25 a huge amount of detailed information will be requested of parents. In your professional view, Andy, do you think your directors of children’s services need all this information to safeguard children? If so, why?

Andy Smith: ADCS has long argued for a register of electively home educated children. For several years we carried out a survey ahead of this information being collected by the Department. We know that the number of children being electively home educated has increased exponentially, particularly since the pandemic. We need to be really clear that the measures, in themselves, will not protect children or keep them safe. The child protection powers are welcome, but we need to think about the capacity and resource that will be required to visit children in their homes and the training that will be required for staff who are going out doing visiting so that they can tune into issues around safeguarding and general wellbeing.

The measures in the Bill are certainly very detailed in terms of what is contained in a register, and there may be some reflection on whether there needs to be such a level of detail captured. That in itself is not going to keep children safe.

There is also some reflection about the relationship that local authorities have with parents, because the reasons why children are being electively home educated have shifted. We have moved away from the kind of philosophical reasons why parents might decide to home educate. Often, children are being home educated because of bullying, because of mental health challenges, or because their parents are being encouraged by schools to electively home educate.

We are also seeing an increasing proportion of children with SEND who are being electively home educated because parents are not getting the provision that they want—it is not available—or because of the tribunal processes. The kind of relationship that local authorities have with parents in that SEND context is quite challenging, and yet the local authority will be going in to the family home, with an officer asking lots of questions about the nature of that education. I think there is some reflection around the detail.

Local authorities need much clearer guidance on what a good elective home education offer looks like so that there is greater consistency across the across the piece. At the moment, we just have not got that because we are talking about very old legislation.

Q Ruth, the Bill gives the Secretary of State powers to implement, if necessary, profit capping on private providers of children’s care homes and fostering agencies. It is very clear that there is a huge amount of profiteering. Do you think that is the right way to go about tackling the issue, and what could it mean for sufficiency of places?

Ruth Stanier: We very strongly support those measures in the Bill, and we have been calling for them for some time. Just creating the powers sends such an important signal to the market in and of itself, but should it not have the desired impact, we hope the Department will go on to put regulations in place. The level of costs has just spiralled out of control, leaving councils in an absolutely impossible situation, so it is excellent that these measures are being brought forward.

We very much welcome the measures in the Bill to put in place greater oversight of providers, because clearly there is that risk of collapse, which could have catastrophic impacts on children in those placements. This will not solve the problems with sufficiency in the number of placements, and we continue to work closely with the Department on measures to tackle that.

Q With your experiences in mind, do you think it is right that local authorities that want to open new schools can currently only seek proposals for academies? Under the Bill, they will be able to invite proposals for other types of school. What implications do you think that will have for pupils?

Ruth Stanier: We very much welcome this measure, which we have long called for. Councils continue to have the duty to ensure that places are available for all local children, and having the flexibility to bring forward new maintained schools, where that is appropriate, is clearly helpful.

Andy Smith: ADCS’s view is that the education system must absolutely be rooted in place, and directors of children’s services and local officers know their places really well. The measures in the Bill around direction of academy schools are a welcome addition. The end to the legal presumption that new schools will become academies, and allowing proposals from local authorities and others, is very welcome. Local authorities understand planning really well, and they understand their place and their children really well. I think that will ultimately be better for children.

Q I want to ask about elective home education, but first, very quickly, we are going to legislate in this Bill for the provision of breakfast at primary schools. Has either of your organisations received any guarantees about the future of existing support for breakfast clubs in secondary schools, or the future of the holiday activities and food programme?

Ruth Stanier: We very much welcome the provisions in this Bill around breakfast clubs. We think it is incredibly important that—

Forgive me, but that is a different question. We know what the legislation proposes for primary school breakfast, but my question was about whether you have heard anything—whether you have had any guarantees—about the future of existing support for breakfast clubs in secondary schools in underprivileged areas, or for the holiday activities and food programme.

Ruth Stanier: On the first of those issues, I am not aware of any such guarantees or representations. I can see the point you are making, which is important. In respect of holiday activities, I have seen recent media coverage that seems potentially positive. Clearly, we very much want that support to remain in place.

Andy Smith: My view would be similar to Ruth’s. The evidence and the impact of HAF are so tangible. We absolutely strongly support that continuing for the most vulnerable children.

Q Turning to elective home education, as Munira Wilson said, there is a great deal of detail in the Bill about information that will be required of parents—for example, the allocation of individual parents’ time dedicated to the education of that child, and so on. Andy, I think you rather diplomatically said that perhaps we needed some reflection on the text. I wondered if you might reflect out loud, and say if you think it goes into an unnecessary level of detail that might be considered rather onerous for parents who are home educating—sometimes in very difficult circumstances—and indeed for your colleagues in local government. Have you made an estimate of how much cost would come with this system?

Andy Smith: We have not made a estimate about how much cost would come with the system. Clearly, there would need to be a new burdens assessment on any changes, because you cannot do these reforms on the cheap. It is really important to make that point.

From previous surveys that we have done with local authorities on elective home education, it is evident that over the last 10 to 12 years, the capacity has been hollowed out. You are often talking about not even a full-time post. In my authority, for example, we have less than one full-time equivalent worker on EHE, who goes out and knocks on doors and tries to talk to parents. If you superimpose the changes envisaged by the Bill, that provision would be significantly insufficient. This is much more than an administrative task. Some councils have an admin-like role that undertakes this function.

Notwithstanding whether there is currently too much detail, if we think about the practical things around visits, understanding the offer, trying to understand what is happening to children and building up that picture, there would need to be sufficient capacity to get sufficient workers in post across places to do that, and they would need be sufficiently trained. That is probably more important in terms of the line of sight on the child than having a huge amount of information and detail about mums and dads and carers.

Q A question that often comes up with electively home-educating parents is about the support that is or is not available to them in their efforts. The Bill does make provision for support to those parents, but on page 55, it says:

“The advice and information to be provided is whatever the local authority considers fit”.

You mentioned a moment ago that there would be some benefit in having more consistency across the country. Would you give a few thoughts on what you think “fit” is in terms of that support? In particular, a question that often comes up from parents is about entry into examinations.

Andy Smith: What constitutes a good elective home education offer will be very different depending on the parent and on the context, and depending sometimes on the rationale around why parents decided to implement EHE for their child. There should be some consistency around what those expectations are. We know that parents provide some fantastic enriched opportunities for their children through EHE and they are able to also sit exams, and there will be some learning from that.

The challenge in this space is that we are not starting with a level playing field. We have moved from a context where we were maybe 10 or 15 years ago, where you had parents who were EHE because of philosophical reasons around that being important for children and for their particular lifestyle. We are now often talking about kids who are not in school because they have been sidelined or discriminated against, because they are SEND or because they are being bullied. There needs to be some expectation and understanding around their starting points as well as what a good offer looks like.

We need to work that through based on the research. We need to try to co-produce that with parents. We need to do that in a way that we think will be broad enough not to tie parents down, but to ensure some consistency, particularly in terms of what the local authority role is and understanding the impact of that.

Ruth Stanier: I want to stress that if it were to be mandatory for councils to pay for exam fees, because clearly there is a case for that, it obviously would need to be funded.

We still have six keen people wanting to come in, so can we have brief single questions and answers, please?

Q I draw the Committee’s attention to the fact that I am a corporate parent in Lancashire. I am interested in the powers on financial oversight and profit caps on residential children’s homes in particular. What impact do you foresee that having on the resources you have available to look after children?

Ruth Stanier: We very much expect that these measures should, over time, lead to a reduction of some of the extremely high costs that have been set out in recent research we have done. That should free up some additional funding for all the other things councils need to be doing.

Andy Smith: If you look at the breadth of measures in the Bill around having the right placements for the right type of child in the right part of the country, and having regulations to try to move away from unregulated placements—we have seen the proliferation of those in recent years—over time we should start to see a more consistent provision of accommodation and placements across the country. There is a focus on fostering, kinship care and prevention as the continuum that we need for children, and there is a real focus on trying to keep children out of care in the first place.

Q Clause 8 specifies that local authorities need to set out a local offer. You have talked about the need to avoid fragmentation, and about corporate responsibility across the country and across Departments. Would you like to see the Bill amended to require a national offer of support to care leavers, and what do you think should be in it?

Ruth Stanier: We certainly would want to see corporate parenting duties extended at a national level to Government Departments and relevant public sector bodies. We think that is incredibly important. Otherwise, we are very much supportive of the measures in the Bill in respect of the kinship offer, though we think it is important that there is a clear threshold for that support so that it is realistic and affordable and can be implemented.

Andy Smith: I would support that. A national offer for care leavers is an interesting concept. There should be some absolute minimum requirements we expect in an offer, and I think you would broadly see that in many councils in what is provided for children in care and for care leavers. It is usually co-produced with representatives who were care leavers, and with councils and so on. I think that would be an important reflection within the context of a much broader understanding of corporate parenting.

Q We heard in earlier evidence that spending on early intervention has reduced while crisis costs have significantly increased. What do you think will be the impact of early intervention, including family group decision making, primarily on outcomes but also, in the longer term, on costs?

Ruth Stanier: We very much think that the measures in the Bill will help to pull funding to the left, further upstream into prevention. We warmly welcome the Government’s recent investment in the children’s prevention grant. We think that the measures should help to improve outcomes and reduce costs over the longer term.

Andy Smith: It is absolutely a false economy not to invest in early help and early intervention. We know that the evidence base is so strong on children escalating into higher-cost services. My authority has invested in early help services, and we have an edge of care team that targets children on the edge of the care system. When we are able to prevent them from going into care, we track the cost avoidance, looking at what a typical placement might have cost. We have saved in excess of £5 million over the last three years in cost avoidance.

The case is well argued. The challenge is that councils are at different starting points because of the way in which funding has been eroded over the last 10 years and the fact that many councils have to prioritise the higher-cost services, which often take away from early intervention. It is a false economy. If we can get the funding right, the Bill offers us an opportunity to invest in family help and early help services and start to see impacts much more consistently. We are beginning to see some of that from the 12 Families First pilots that are taking place.

Q I completely agree on the need for stable safeguarding teams, and they are in the better interests of children, but can you completely rule out any risk that a statutory cap on the use of agency workers will lead to people leaving the profession?

Andy Smith: I cannot absolutely rule that out. We have significant churn in social work, and that is part of the challenge—that we are struggling, as a system, to recruit and retain social workers. We have lots of routes into social work, and we are doing lots to promote the role. I am a social worker. I love it, and it is brilliant, even though I have not practised for a number of years now. The measures in the Bill will go some way in setting some rules around how and when social workers can move into agency social work, but I cannot guarantee that it will stop or prevent the churn in the system. The Bill outlines one tool that will help with the stability that we need in the workforce, and that ultimately leads to better outcomes for children.

Q With the requirement for registers of electively home-educated students, do you anticipate a sizeable decrease in the number of children missing education?

Ruth Stanier: It is an interesting question. I am not sure that that would necessarily follow. As Andy has set out, we see these very clear upward trends at the moment, in part driven by the significant problems in the SEND system and the challenges that many children face, with the schools that they are in, in accessing the support that they need, including mental health support. I am not sure that that would necessarily follow.

Andy Smith: You have to overlay the implementation timeline of this Bill with what needs to happen around a new system for an inclusive education. That will start to impact on some of the cohorts of children who are missing education or being electively home-educated. There is such a strong SEND component now, in a way we did not see before the pandemic. We have to overlay the two things to understand what those impacts might start to look like.

Q Before the election I visited Linwood school’s Charminster site, and I spoke to a young girl with support needs around SEND. She told me about a meeting with a new social worker, who asked her how her parent was. She had to tell the social worker that her parent had died. That is just one of many examples of social workers who pick up new cases and do not have time to read notes. We have constant churn, and we know some of the human cost. Can you speculate about or estimate some of the financial savings from reinvesting into a permanent workforce the money that would be spent on local agency social workers? How much would local councils benefit from this measure?

Andy Smith: An agency social worker costs around a third more than a social worker on the books of a local authority. You can extrapolate what that would look like from a team of eight or nine social workers to two or three times that. Financially, it is definitely a much better option than having an agency worker. That is not to say that agency social workers are bad—that is not what I am saying—because there could well be, and are, occasions when local authorities need to employ agency social workers to cover sickness or maternity leave, or where there is a particular pressure. But it should be an exception rather than the rule.

It is about creating the conditions that enable social workers to want to stay on the books of local authorities, as well as putting rules around it so that workers have sufficient training and development, and cannot move to agencies too quickly before they have had that breadth of experience. Ultimately, it would be cheaper to the public purse if we had fewer agency social workers and more social workers on the books. It would also be better for children in terms of consistency and stability, because we want to try to reduce the hand-offs and the churn in the workforce.

Q You have mentioned a couple of times the change with elective home education from philosophy to reasons around the provision in schools. Do you have thoughts on what accountability there should be for schools? Ofsted currently inspects the schools, and it does not look at reasons why children might not be in school electively. Is there some mechanism that you see around that?

We have 30 seconds. We have to stick to the programme motion; I am sorry.

Ruth Stanier: We very much welcome the fact that the Government are now asking Ofsted to look specifically at inclusion. We think it is so important for precisely that reason.

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

Examination of Witnesses

Julie McCulloch and Paul Whiteman gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from Julie McCulloch, senior director of strategy, policy and professional development services at the Association of School and College Leaders, and Paul Whiteman, general secretary of the National Association of Head Teachers. You are very welcome. Do you both want to say a brief word of introduction?

Paul Whiteman: I am Paul Whiteman. We broadly support the provisions within the Bill, as far as they connect with schools. The Bill builds upon a lot of the policy positions and ambitions that we have held for some time. We do not see it as a revolution in education, but the provisions are broadly sensible.

Julie McCulloch: We are in a similar place in our schools. There is much in the Bill that aligns with our existing policy positions. We have a few logistical questions about how some of the proposals might play out, and perhaps some questions about how they sit within the Government’s broader vision and strategy for education, but we are broadly in favour of the proposals in the Bill.

Q Good morning, and thank you for coming. Julie, on your logistical questions, ASCL said in its statement that

“work will be needed to get these measures right…Further changes must be done with care and must not seem ideological.”

You talked about some of the issues that you want to see addressed as we amend the Bill. What are they?

Julie McCulloch: They are largely about the fact that these proposals are landing in a particular context. There are three areas where those logistical challenges exist. The first is that they are landing in the context of a system that has been systematically underfunded for many years. That particularly relates to the proposal about breakfast clubs. We have some questions about ensuring sufficient funding for breakfast clubs.

Q Can I press you on that one? I do not understand from the Bill how breakfast clubs are supposed to work. Obviously, many primary schools already offer a breakfast club, and they charge for it. If you are now supposed to offer 30 minutes and a free breakfast—I think the going rate will be 60p in the first wave—how does that work with schools’ current charging arrangements? Are they allowed to charge before that period, so there will be both charging and a free session? Is that your understanding of what the Bill does?

Julie McCulloch: That is our understanding. Is that yours too, Paul? There will be the provision of additional funding for the children who most need it, but you can provide provision around that.

Q So you will have two tiers. What is your understanding of the position on secondary school breakfast clubs? Have you had any undertakings on the future of the free school breakfast programme that exists in secondary schools, or the holiday activities and food programme? Is it your understanding that there is secure funding for those things?

Julie McCulloch: I am not sure I would be as confident as that. We have started to have some conversations about that, but not detailed ones.

Q You would welcome greater certainty about those things, presumably.

Julie McCulloch: We absolutely would, and continued funding.

Q Is there anything else that you would like amended in the schools section of the Bill?

Julie McCulloch: I have two other thoughts, just to finish my point about the context within which this is landing. The second is about the challenge around recruitment and retention in schools. Although the proposal about qualified teacher status is absolutely welcome and the right thing in principle, we have had some concerns from our members about the challenges of ensuring that can be followed through, when they are already really struggling to recruit.

Q Do you think it is sometimes better to have a good professional person whom the head thinks is a good teacher, rather than no teacher at all?

Julie McCulloch: In some cases, yes. That is a sad place to find ourselves, but sometimes that is the case, particularly when we are looking at vocational subjects at the top end of secondary school and into colleges. There are some excellent teachers and lecturers in further education colleges and secondary schools on vocational subjects, who do not necessarily have qualified teacher status, and we need to make sure we can retain them.

Q You can be a good teacher even if you do not have QTS. You can be the right person.

Julie McCulloch: Yes. We absolutely in principle think that there should be qualified teacher status, but it is about that contextual piece.

The third area where we have some concerns about the context is the extent to which there is capacity in local authorities—you have just heard from local authority colleagues—to pick up some of the additional requirements on them. Again, we do not have any concerns about the principle, but some of our members are concerned about whether there is that capacity, and whether that expertise still exists in local authorities.

Q Do you have a sense that a large number of schools are not providing a broad and balanced education at the moment? Do you have a sense of how many schools are not following the national curriculum?

Julie McCulloch: No, it is absolutely not a significant number at all. We hear from our members that the vast majority do use the national curriculum as their starting point and as a benchmark, and they innovate on top of it.

Q What do you think the problem is that that measure is trying to solve?

Julie McCulloch: In our view, it is right that there should be a core national entitlement curriculum for all children and young people; we think that is the right thing to do. The devil is in the detail—we are going through a curriculum review at the moment. Our view is that that entitlement is important—on the ground it might not make an enormous amount of difference, but it is still important.

Q When it comes to school admissions, do you think the measures in the Bill will help local authorities to fulfil their statutory duties? Could you comment on how you think it will impact on children and schools?

Paul Whiteman: We do think it will help local authorities—we think there has been a gap in terms of their ability to ensure that their admissions duty is fully met. To that extent, the difficulty of some parents to find the school that their children really should go to has been fettered. Therefore, we think these provisions are broadly sensible and to be welcomed.

Julie McCulloch: We agree. The more join-up we can have between local authorities and schools on admissions the better; there are some areas where that is working really well already, and there are others where that statutory duty might help.

Q Great. From your experience, do you think it is important that a school’s individual circumstances are taken into account when you are determining the best and appropriate action to drive school improvement where a school may be under--performing, such as whether it is a maintained school? Do you consider that conversion to an academy by default might not always be in the best interests of every school and the children within it?

Paul Whiteman: It is important to preface my answer by saying that the success of academies can be seen, and the improvement is very real, but it is not always the only way to improve schools. We have held that belief for a very long time. With the extent to which we rely on data to support one argument or the other—of course, it has been the only option for so very long, and the data is self-serving in that respect.

Academisation is not always a silver bullet, and does not always work according to the locality, status or circumstances of the school. We absolutely think that different options are available. The introduction of the Regional Improvement for Standards and Excellence teams to offer different support and different ways of support is to be welcomed to see if that is better. Academisation has not always been a silver bullet, but it is really important to preface by saying that that is not an attack on the academy system—there are very good academies and there are excellent local authority maintained schools as well, and we should make sure that we pick the right option for the schooling difficulty.

Julie McCulloch: I would start in the same place. It is important to recognise the extent to which the expertise and capacity to improve schools does now sit within multi-academy trusts—not exclusively, but that is where a lot of that capacity sits at the moment. It is important to make sure that we do not do anything that undermines that, but our long-standing position is that accountability measures should not lead to automatic consequences, and that there does need to be a nuanced conversation on a case-by-case basis about the best way to help a struggling school to improve, which we welcome. There are some challenges. I think some members have raised some questions about whether that slows down a process to the detriment of the children and young people in those schools who most need support; clearly that would not be a good place to find ourselves. However, in principle that sort of nuance is welcome.

Paul Whiteman: It is worth adding that we do have examples of schools that are in difficult circumstances where an academy chain cannot be found to accept them, because the challenge is too difficult for an academy to really want to get hold of them.

Q Leaving aside the register, looking at the schools part of the Bill—and knowing the challenges your members up and down the country face—do you think it has the right priorities in terms of the issues we need to be tackling across schools and colleges?

Julie McCulloch: I think it has some important priorities, and the ones you highlighted are first among them—the register, for example. There are certainly other issues that our members would raise with us as being burning platforms at the moment. SEND is absolutely top of that list, with recruitment and retention close behind, and probably accountability third. Those are the three issues that our members raise as the biggest challenges. There are some really important measures in the Bill that talk to some of those concerns. Certainly, there are some things in the Bill that might help with recruitment and retention. But it is fair to reflect the fact that our members are keen to quickly see more work around some of those burning platforms.

Q You mention recruitment and retention as a key issue—we know that it is a massive issue —yet in a previous answer you said you were concerned that the qualified teacher status changes might reduce supply. In your professional judgment, what impact might the QTS measures and the constraints on pay and conditions have on recruitment and retention? What is it that you think will be beneficial for R&R?

Julie McCulloch: I think there are two different questions there. On the QTS measure, I think it is about recognising the acute situation that we are in, and that in some circumstances our members are saying that they have a good member of staff delivering teaching who does not have QTS but is maybe working towards it. There is some devil in the detail there about where exemptions might be, and how working towards QTS might work.

On the changes around applying the school teachers’ pay and conditions document to academies as well as maintained schools, if the way we understand that measure is right, we think it will help with recruitment and retention—if it is about a floor, not a ceiling. We are not entirely convinced that that is how the Bill is worded at the moment, but if that is the intention and how it plays out, we think that is helpful.

Q Obviously, breakfast clubs are for primary schools, but hunger does not end at 11. Do either of you think that we should be extending provision of free school meals right up to 18?

Paul Whiteman: May I add something in response to your first question, and then deal with your second question? In terms of QTS, we agree with what Julia said, but would add that it is a legitimate expectation of pupils and parents that they are taught by someone who is qualified to do so. Therefore, the provisions in the Bill meaning that people travel towards becoming qualified teachers are very important. That necessity has a marginal impact on recruitment and retention, frankly.

Recruitment and retention is so much more than the flexibilities that may or may not be allowed to academy chains under pay and conditions. Those are sparingly and judiciously used at the moment—we have no objection to how they have been used so far. But those flexibilities have a marginal impact. What affects recruitment and retention is more around workload stress, the stress of accountability, and flexibility within employment, rather than those flexibilities.

Q A quick question for Julie. You said it was not clear whether the Bill currently delivers a floor, not a ceiling. Would you welcome it if we all passed an amendment to make that very clear?

Julie McCulloch: Yes.

Q What is the importance in the Bill of providing a clear legal basis for sharing information with the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children?

Paul Whiteman: We absolutely support that. A statutory duty for schools and educators to be consulted in that respect is necessary, and it will widen the voices within that. After all, it is in schools that children are most present and visible, and teachers and school leaders already play a role in noticing changes and issues.

Julie McCulloch: We feel the same way. I would simply add that it is a growing set of responsibilities on schools—burden is not the right word, because schools absolutely need to do it. We are hearing a lot about the pressures on designated safeguarding leads in schools. While we also welcome schools’ having a statutory role here, we need to recognise that schools will need support and sufficient resources to deliver that.

Q I did some rough calculations, and I think 3.1% of full-time equivalent teachers do not have QTS. In 2010, which happens to be the year the data series started, it was 3.2%. On pay and conditions, no one seems to have come forward with any widespread evidence of schools paying less than what might be this floor condition. In your estimation, what problem are the Government trying to solve with these two measures?

Paul Whiteman: I think you are asking the wrong people. I do not know what is in the minds of Government.

Q Paul, you like to speculate—come on.

Paul Whiteman: Damian, you know me too well. I cannot answer what was in the minds of Government. Broadly speaking, as I have said, I think it is a legitimate expectation of parents that a teacher in front of their child is qualified to teach them. On the push from both your Government and this Government for standards to be the voice of parents, and in talking about doing this for the expectations of parents, I think that gets alongside that ambition, so it is welcome.

On the pay flexibilities, the debate is louder than it needs to be because of the point that you made—we have not really deviated much from the STCPD. The whole point of having an independent pay review body to establish what the floors should be has worked in that regard but we need it to offer more, and obviously we would always say that. Where I would phrase it slightly differently, on the question of whether we would ask for an amendment for a floor and not a ceiling, is I would talk about a core rather than a floor. There should be a core of terms and conditions that means a teacher or school leader is agile within the system and portable. We do not want people being stuck and unable to move because the terms and conditions vary so widely. That would work against our ambition of delivering the very best education system and getting the best teachers in front of children.

Julie McCulloch: I would not disagree with anything there. Core is a better term and it suggests not a minimum but a core entitlement, and I think that is right. On pay and conditions, yes. We hear from our members that some of them have exercised some upward flexibilities and they are keen to able to continue to do that, and to recognise the context in which they are operating. They are keen to maintain that while keeping that core. QTS is a very small number, but where that number exists, there might be reasons for it. It is important to recognise the balance between wanting a fully qualified professional and some of the nuance there.

Q I think a lot of people see the measures in the Bill on flexibilities for schools, on academies and on the national curriculum as quite a dramatic change, or a dramatic undoing of reforms made to the school system over the course of multiple Governments over the last couple of decades. Paul, you said in your opening remarks that this is not “a revolution”. My question is: come the revolution, what should we expect to see in Labour’s next Bill?

Paul Whiteman: As a trade union that is politically independent and speaks to all of you, I have no insight into what might be in Labour’s next Bill.

I think that is not a terribly serious question, Damian. Darren, let us get on with it.

It is a serious question.

It is not part of the Bill, and we have to stick to this Bill.

Q My question is about qualified teacher status, and the Bill is obviously about either having or working towards that. Do you think it is a reasonable expectation that, whatever your expertise and subject knowledge, if you are teaching, you are trained to teach? Do you think that remains a reasonable expectation?

Julie McCulloch: I think it does in the vast majority of cases, but quite what working towards it looks like needs thinking about to ensure that it does not exacerbate existing crises. The only exception I might look at—I think there may be exceptions for this anyway—is at the very top end of secondary, and going into the college and vocational sphere, where there might be a slightly different set of skills needed in the people teaching those young people. But broadly, as a principle, I would agree.

Q My main question is about safeguarding. I know from experience that the good relationships between the different agencies, particularly schools and the local authorities, are forged locally, and therefore they depend on almost a bit of a lottery. Do you think that mandating will resolve that issue? Will that satisfy the leaders and the designated safeguarding leads who you speak to that they now have the position and the basis for a much stronger relationship through what is being mandated?

Paul Whiteman: We do. I would not go as far as suggesting that it is a lottery, but there are differences of relationship and of quality of relationship, so putting that on a statutory footing will help. Our one concern is that schools are often seen as the thing that will fill any void that occurs, or that will assume a greater responsibility. This is really about making sure that, through the conversations with those safeguarding teams, all the services that support children are there to help them, and that schools have a voice in that, rather than having to assume some of the responsibilities of the other agencies, as has happened more and more over time. We see it as a positive step, but there is a risk that somehow more and more responsibility is placed on schools, which would not be correct.

Julie McCulloch: I strongly agree with that. We have been doing a lot of work with our members recently about the additional responsibilities that they have been taking on, some of which they have been expected to take on and some of which they have felt that they had no choice but to take on, because the agencies that had normally delivered those services previously no longer exist or have incredibly long waiting lists. The relationships that might be improved through this measure are really important, but there is a huge capacity issue as well.

Q Are those expectations clear enough?

Julie McCulloch: I think they could probably be clearer.

Q The Bill talks about breakfast clubs, but says nothing about free school meals more widely. Would you like to see an expansion of eligibility for free school meals?

Julie McCulloch: We would.

Could you elaborate on that?

Julie McCulloch: Happily. We would like to see the expansion up to 18—at the moment, it goes up to only 16 —and we would like to see it expanded to all children in families receiving universal credit.

Paul Whiteman: We are in a similar position. We absolutely accept the evidence that well-fed students perform and work better. Our only concern is the level of funding that comes with it. The provision has to be funded properly, not just for buying the food but, importantly, for the capital costs to make sure that those things can be delivered properly.

Q I am sure that we would all agree that we want to see high standards in every school for every child, whether that is for academic attainment and achievement or for safeguarding outcomes. In your view—broadly speaking; we have limited time—does the Bill help or hinder the ambition of high and rising standards in every school for every child?

Paul Whiteman: I certainly do not think it hinders that. On the extent to which the Bill addresses some of the struggles that we have had about attendance and support for children, it will certainly help. Often, when we are discussing such things, the language is very unhelpful, because most schools have high and rising standards already—it is a very small percentage of schools that are in real difficulty. My eye is therefore drawn to the provisions for when intervention occurs, how that support occurs and whether that will help, and I absolutely think it will. Having alternatives, not just one answer, will assist the local education economy and the local education effort to collaborate more and to help more. One of the things that we need to make sure that we are doing much better in a fragmented system is encouraging more collaboration between different trusts and schools.

Julie McCulloch: I certainly do not think that there are things in here that will hinder that, and there are some things that will help. More broadly, a lot of the measures that would help with high and rising standards in schools sit outside schools, perhaps in the Government’s broader opportunity mission. That links to the previous discussion around broader children’s and family services, and children living in poverty. There is absolutely some helpful stuff here, but much of the answer probably lies in other parts of the Government’s work.

Q I want to talk about school improvement. Paul, I think you said earlier that you were confident in the RISE teams as a policy. When we FOI-ed commitments to the RISE teams, we found that the east of England, where my constituency is, will have four people from the RISE teams. We have thousands of schools, and probably hundreds that require improvement, yet only four people. Can you qualify why you have confidence in the RISE teams to deliver a school improvement offer? Can you also speak to what more could be done in the Bill to ensure that there is a proper school improvement offer?

Paul Whiteman: I am not sure that I have said that I have confidence in the RISE teams. I think I referenced the RISE teams as having a role in improving standards, in that they will come and support as well. I do not know whether there is a word-for-word record to check that, but if I was saying that I had confidence, that was not intended.

I think the problem with the RISE teams, and all the rollout of the Bill’s intentions, is to do with the practical application of the Bill’s provisions later on. Of course, making sure that those teams are properly resourced and funded so that they work is a challenge. There are other issues about the context in which they work, and I think the change of context from a discussion of intervention to a discussion of support is a much more positive footing for those teams to interact with schools locally.

Julie McCulloch: It is important to remember that the RISE teams are as much about triage as they are about delivering support. We need the kind of recognition that I started with of where the expertise sits in the system, which is largely within schools and trusts.

Q Do you think school improvement is best delivered at the Department for Education in a big office somewhere, or in a school with people on location?

Julie McCulloch: I think there is a role for both. There is a role for central co-ordination and central support. If the RISE teams deliver, that is what they could provide, but that support for schools does need to be done on the ground. That links to parallel conversations that are going on about how we might change inspection and accountability, as well as doing more to recognise the role that schools and trusts play across the system for school improvement, not just in their own individual institutions.

Paul Whiteman: Just to add quickly, I do not see the RISE teams as the only participants in that school improvement. We see one of the roles of the RISE teams as identifying helpful local practice and trying to broker collaboration which, at the moment, sometimes does not happen in the way that it might. Access to multi-academy trusts could do something very well to schools that are not in their local authority.

Q How do you see the role of local authorities with multi-academy trusts? Are they just replacing what was already going on?

Paul Whiteman: Unfortunately, local academy trusts looking outside their own boundary does not happen quite as often as we would like in terms of helping schools that are not part of their trust, unless they become formally part of it. What we need is more collaboration across all school types in local areas.

Q I think I am quoting you correctly in saying that academisation was not a silver bullet. Could you elaborate on the factors that are in play where it has not worked in particular areas?

Paul Whiteman: The data we look at shows quality schools and improvement outside the academy system as well as in the academy system. Where you get particular schools that are very difficult to broker, or have been re-brokered on a number of occasions, we need a different answer. I think it sits with the locality, and the local education networks and economy, to run to the aid of that school and try to improve it. I was also careful to say that my comments are not an attack on academies or the good work they do. It is about finding the answer for the individual school.

Q What is the difference with the maintained school if that is sitting quite isolated around other academies? It has not got that in-place support around it. How does that work effectively—is it better than re-brokering to another academy?

Paul Whiteman: For me, it is not necessarily about the legal status of the school. It is about the collaboration and support around that school from the rest of the education network and society around it. We have seen some really good work in the last few years in the north-east with the way it has been building those networks around schools that happen to be in trusts and schools that are not in a trust, and making sure that support is delivered. The provisions in the Bill mean that you could make different decisions about the school’s legal status and actually make sure the support is delivered in a way that works for that school.

I thank our witnesses.

Examination of Witness

Jacky Tiotto gave evidence.

We will now hear oral evidence from Jacky Tiotto, chief executive of CAFCASS—the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. Please could you introduce yourself?

Jacky Tiotto: Thank you. My name is Jacky Tiotto. I am the chief executive of CAFCASS and have been there for five and a half years.