Select committee: Education Committee

Children's Wellbeing and School Bill

Open Opened 21 Jan 2025 5 recommendations 8 conclusions

Where it stands

The inquiry is open, opened 21 January 2025.

The committee has published 1 report, most recently 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill on 28 February 2025.

The government's response

Published 23 May 2025. The deadline was 28 April 2025.

Summary written by Accountability Index from the government's response. It is not the government's own words.

The government welcomes the Committee's report and defends the Bill's timetable and approach, while declining some specific proposals such as a national care offer and express SEND provision on the face of the Bill.

  • On scrutiny, the government says it "did not consider the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill necessary for pre-legislative scrutiny" and that the Bill's passage and timing between intervals is "in line with the government’s guidance on making legislation".
  • On a National Care Offer for care leavers, it states that "Central Government should not design a national offer for 152 local areas as one size does not fit all", and says it is reviewing its published information so care leavers can understand their entitlements.
  • On mental health assessment of children in care, it says "We agree and recognise this is both concerning". The Department for Education and the Department of Health and Social Care are reviewing statutory guidance and "will consider what changes are needed".
  • On free school meals auto-enrolment, it does not commit to it, but says it is exploring data sharing options and "expect[s] to have these in place from Spring next year", ahead of September 2026.

Read the government's response ↗ Report an error

Recommendations and conclusions 13 shown

2: Government's compressed bill timetable obstructs effective select committee scrutiny

Conclusion · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Concluded (the committee's words)
The Government did not, in this case, publish the Bill in draft. Nonetheless, the Bill’s timetable could have factored in time for our Committee to come to a considered view on its contents. Although the Minister for School Standards had written to us of her wish to “work closely” with the Committee, no allowance was made for select committee scrutiny in the Bill’s extremely compressed timetable. (Conclusion, Paragraph 7)

Link to this item · Read this item

3: Government disregarded guidelines and hindered scrutiny of Bill through poor engagement

Conclusion · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Concluded (the committee's words)
The Government has neither followed its own guidelines, nor engaged as productively as we would have liked with our Committee over this Bill. The interval between introduction and Second Reading was not long enough for proper preparation by Members of the House. The publication of the Impact Assessment over a month after the Bill was introduced and halfway through the consideration of the Bill in Committee, shows scant regard for the House. The decision not to involve our Committee in pre-legislative scrutiny, or even to give us prior notice of the Bill’s publication, has made it more difficult for us to conduct proper scrutiny of the Bill. Had we been involved at an earlier stage, we could have fed our findings into the Bill itself and this process would also have allowed the Government to respond to issues raised by stakeholders in advance of Second Reading. (Conclusion, Paragraph 11)

Link to this item · Read this item

4: Require Government to follow legislative guidelines and engage meaningfully with select committees

Recommendation · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Recommended (the committee's words)
We recommend that the Government undertakes to follow the Cabinet Office Guide to Making Legislation and engage meaningfully, and in a timely way, with select committees as a way of improving policy making and building consensus on important legislation. We further recommend that the Government provide a memorandum to the Liaison Committee demonstrating how it plans to engage with select committees on legislation over the Parliament. (Recommendation, Paragraph 12) 26

Link to this item · Read this item

5: Tight government timetable forced selective committee scrutiny of bill contents

Conclusion · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Concluded (the committee's words)
We would have liked to dedicate more time to a considered examination of the policy issues in the Bill and the mechanisms by which the Bill seeks to meet its policy aims. However, given the tight timetable the Government has provided for this Bill, and our wish to contribute effectively by proposing changes to the Bill where necessary, we have had to be extremely selective in the parts of the Bill we have examined. We have sought to learn from, and amplify, the voices of the practitioners, families and professionals who will be directly affected by the Bill. (Conclusion, Paragraph 14)

Link to this item · Read this item

6: Care leavers experience a confusing patchwork of differing local authority entitlements.

Conclusion · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Concluded (the committee's words)
Care leavers face a confusing patchwork of entitlements when they leave care. This is made more complex by the differing offers in each local authority and the fact that they are having to navigate this at a young age, often with little or no support. Our witnesses supported the view that a National Care Offer would help with this. (Conclusion, Paragraph 19)

Link to this item · Read this item

7: Inadequate assessment of mental health for children and young people in care.

Conclusion · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Concluded (the committee's words)
Young people in care are significantly more likely to have experienced trauma and adverse experiences than their peers, and therefore strong mental health support is crucial. Although local authorities are required to assess the emotional and mental health of children in their care, evidence suggests this does not always happen in practice. Our witnesses were clear that there is scope to strengthen the requirement for the mental health and wellbeing of children and young people in the care system to be assessed. (Conclusion, Paragraph 23)

Link to this item · Read this item

8: Implicit inclusion of children with SEND in breakfast clubs risks unequal access.

Recommendation · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Recommended (the committee's words)
Despite the implicit inclusion of children with SEND in the Bill’s provisions on breakfast clubs, we consider that express inclusion of the needs of those children on the face of the Bill would be a much stronger safeguard against schools failing—for reasons of cost, convenience and accident—to put in place commonsense measures to ensure that children with SEND have equal access to breakfast clubs. There are also implications for local authorities who fund home to school transport for many children with SEND and who would be required to make transport available on a more flexible basis, potentially at additional cost, to enable children to get to a breakfast club. Strengthening the inclusion requirements of breakfast clubs on the face of the Bill would place the onus on the Department for Education to take account of this requirement when allocating funds for the national roll-out of breakfast clubs and making the case to HM Treasury for those monies in the upcoming Spending Review. (Conclusion, Paragraph 30)

Link to this item · Read this item

9: Introduce auto-enrolment for all eligible children in free school meals without delay.

Recommendation · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Recommended (the committee's words)
We consider that the arguments for auto-enrolment in free school meals for those children currently eligible are conclusive. In the interests of alleviating hunger in schools and improving health and educational outcomes for the poorest children, auto-enrolment must be brought in without delay. (Conclusion, Paragraph 35) 27

Link to this item · Read this item

10: Require local authorities to consult domestic abuse charities on FGDM decisions involving abuse.

Recommendation · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Recommended (the committee's words)
We consider that local authorities should draw on the advice of specialist domestic abuse charities in coming to a decision on whether FGDM is in the child’s best interests where domestic abuse has occurred. (Conclusion, Paragraph 41)

Link to this item · Read this item

12: Inadequate time and resources prevented detailed scrutiny of Bill's delegated powers.

Conclusion · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Concluded (the committee's words)
We have not had the time or resource to comb through the Bill or take evidence on the delegated powers within it, although we note that the published Delegated Powers Memorandum for the Bill is 75 pages long. We stated at the beginning of this Report that the Bill’s timetable and handling has not allowed us to conduct detailed legislative scrutiny. (Conclusion, Paragraph 65)

Link to this item · Read this item

13: Committee conducted urgent scrutiny of Children's Wellbeing Bill under government timetable constraints.

Conclusion · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Concluded (the committee's words)
We have worked at pace on the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to contribute to fulfil our scrutiny role within the parameters set by the Government’s timetable and increase transparency for the benefit of the House and, we hope, those who will be affected by the legislation. We are particularly grateful to those young adults who gave evidence to us on their lived experience of the care system and have reflected their voices in this Report. We have tested the Bill’s provisions with stakeholders and policy experts and produced this Report with the aim of assisting the House at Report stage and Third Reading. (Conclusion, Paragraph 67)

Link to this item · Read this item

14: Consider Chair's tabled New Clauses and amendments to address witness concerns and recommendations.

Recommendation · 2nd Report – Scrutiny of the Children's Wellbeing and Schools Bill · Addressed to Department for Education

Recommended (the committee's words)
We draw the Government’s attention to the New Clauses and amendments tabled in the name of our Chair which seek to offer practical ways to meet the concerns and put into effect the recommendations we have heard in evidence from witnesses. (Recommendation, Paragraph 68) 28

Link to this item · Read this item

Reports

1 report

Oral evidence sessions

1 session

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

Date Session and witnesses Source
4 Feb 2025
Children's wellbeing and School Bill
Clare Canning · Broadleaf Home Ed Co-operative, Councillor Bev Craig · Local Government Association (LGA), Daniel Kebede · National Education Union, Dr Rebecca Montacute · Sutton Trust, John Barneby · Oasis Community Learning, Kate Anstey · Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG), Lindsey MacDonald · Magic Breakfast, Sam Freedman · The Institute for Government, Thomas Brooke · Office of the Schools Adjudicator
View ↗

Who gave evidence

9 witnesses

On smaller screens, scroll horizontally to read every column. Keyboard users can focus the table region and use the arrow keys.

WitnessOrganisationSessions
Clare Canning · Head of Centre Broadleaf Home Ed Co-operative 1
Councillor Bev Craig · Leader, Manchester City Council and Vice Chair Local Government Association (LGA) 1
Daniel Kebede · General Secretary National Education Union 1
Dr Rebecca Montacute · Head of Research and Policy Sutton Trust 1
John Barneby · CEO Oasis Community Learning 1
Kate Anstey · Head of Education Policy Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) 1
Lindsey MacDonald · CEO Magic Breakfast 1
Sam Freedman · Senior Fellow The Institute for Government 1
Thomas Brooke · Joint interim Chief School Adjudicator Office of the Schools Adjudicator 1