Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill
(1 day, 5 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:33 - Division on Amendment 108 - Ayes: 67 / Noes: 191 - Amendment 108 disagreed.
17:38 - Division on Amendment 114 - Ayes: 255 / Noes: 183 - Amendment 114 agreed.
19:18 - Division on Amendment 121A - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 147 - Amendment 121A agreed.
23:55 - Division on Amendment 194 - Ayes: 16 / Noes: 92 - Amendment 194 disagreed.
“Child poverty targets(1) The Secretary of State must, as soon as reasonably practicable and no later than 30 September 2026, and then at the start of each Parliament, lay regulations made by statutory instrument that establish binding child poverty targets.(2) Child poverty targets must include—(a) targets for reducing the number of children living in poverty,(b) targets for reducing the number of children living in deep poverty, and(c) timescales by which each target must be achieved.(3) The Secretary of State must lay an annual report before Parliament setting out—(a) steps they have taken to deliver on the child poverty targets, and(b) progress that has been made towards the child poverty targets.(4) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on the Secretary of State to set binding child poverty reduction targets in regulations at the start of each Parliament.
Lord Bird (CB)
I am very pleased that this amendment is to be discussed again. What troubles me is that it could be such a small, insignificant thing to ask for targets from the Government. Are targets part of the armoury that we use to get rid of poverty? If we are endeavouring to get rid of poverty, we will need more than targets. We will need houses; we will need training for parents so that they do not pass poverty down to the next generation; we will need a Government who will converge and co-ordinate all the efforts into some form whereby they can say that they are disentangling the situation.
At the moment, we have eight government departments dealing with poverty. I imagine that if we did not have a Ministry of Defence and people decided to attack this country, we would form a Ministry of Defence, bring everything together and not leave it to eight different ministries. The same goes for poverty. Poverty is destroying us. Poverty is stopping schools delivering schooling: 30% of teachers’ time is spent on the problems that are caused when poverty enters the classroom. In our health service, 50% of people who suffer from cardiological—whatever you call it; forgive me, I have new teeth—are suffering from food poverty.
I have used this amendment to raise not only the question of targets but the point that the Government should use them. They should have others measuring their homework rather than doing it themselves. I have heard from the Government that, if you have targets, you tend to have people massaging the figures to make it look as though the targets are being achieved and that you then go after the low-hanging fruit because you do not get anywhere near the hardest to reach—you can achieve your targets by concentrating on the fact that it is easier to help those who are the low-hanging fruit.
Overall, my big question is whether targets could fit in a panoply of organised, convergent energy that is used to get rid of poverty. I am not here to talk just about just this amendment but about the fact that every Government I know have had all sorts of initiatives to get rid of poverty, but we never see the end of it. Some 4.5 million children are caught in poverty and that is a tremendous indictment not of this Government nor of the last one, and not even of the Government before that, but of the methodology. It is an inherited methodology that is passed down every generation of Government and takes the same form.
Let us please look at targets and be honest about them, and begin, as a society and as a Chamber, to look at the idea that we follow my example and put a lot of work into having a ministry of poverty prevention and cure. The problem is that 90% of all the money that is spent on poverty is spent on the emergency of poverty. We cannot put all our energy into the emergency; we must try to have prevention and cure.
I shall end there because I have not got an awful lot to say about targets. I have said everything; it is all in Hansard. I would love all noble Lords to consider that the Government should at least allow us our targets, and then we can look at all the other things that we need over the coming months and years where we converge and concatenate the energies necessary to get rid of poverty. I inherited poverty and that makes me a fierce warrior to end the inheritance of poverty. I started from behind. Most of those who live in poverty never get to the starting line. We cannot all be Boris Johnson. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak in support of Amendment 107, to which I have added my name, moved by such a warrior against poverty, not least as it provides an opportunity to welcome the Government’s landmark child poverty strategy. Sadly, the Opposition did not think it important enough to ask for the Statement on it to be repeated in your Lordships’ House. I welcome, too, the strategy’s accompanying monitoring and evaluation frameworks, supported by a theory of change, based on clear measures and what it calls a “wide-ranging evidence base”. This includes hearing directly from children, young people and families with lived experience of poverty, building on the strong engagement with them during the strategy’s development.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the powerful and important speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the equally important speech from the noble Lord, Lord Bird. I signed the similar amendment in Committee, but I left a space on this one in the hope against hope that a party less likely than mine would have signed up to it and that a broader spread of support might have been shown—but that did not happen.
On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, made about a yardstick, I was thinking—perhaps because I have been out campaigning on the doorstep this morning—about an additional argument that was not made in Committee or here: this would be of help to voters. A Government starts out and sets targets; then, as you get to the end of the Parliament and the next election, voters would have a clear sense of whether they had met their targets and done what they intended to achieve. It would also put great pressure on all parties competing in the next election to say, if they are elected to be the Government, what their child poverty reduction target will be. That would be useful, clear and obvious to voters.
We must acknowledge where we are now. We have already heard about child poverty, but must refer to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis of the OBR figures, which says that the headline poverty rate between 2026 and 2029 will stay essentially the same. The poorest are getting poorer. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the addition of deep poverty to this amendment: 6.8 million people across these islands are in deep poverty, the highest level on record. It has hardened—a technical term that I have just learned —as the average person in poverty is now 29% below the poverty line; that was 23% in the mid-1990s.
One of the obvious things that would address this target and make a big difference would be the abolition the overall benefit cap. I applaud the Government’s action on the two-child cap, but removing the overall benefit cap would immediately lift 300,000 children out of poverty. We would be able to see progress towards a positive target.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I will reflect on Scotland, as it shows the impact that targets have. With the Scottish child payment, the lowest rate of child poverty on these islands is in Scotland. It is still not great, and should be much better, but Scotland’s 23% compares with 31% in England and Wales, and 24% in Northern Ireland. Setting targets focuses minds and enables voters to make judgments.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 107, moved by our friend, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, and will follow the powerful speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Bennett. The amendment is timely. It supports our children, particularly those most in need. As we heard, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation’s analysis on child poverty in Britain has said that 4.5 million children are living in poverty—a figure that continues to climb, even after the most recent policy changes.
These are not abstract numbers; they are the lived reality of millions of families who are denied the security and opportunity that every child deserves. The amendment goes beyond rhetoric: it would require the Government to set binding targets, with clear timescales, and to account publicly for each step taken towards meeting them. Doing so would emulate principles behind other statutory frameworks. The most obvious is the Climate Change Act, through which parliamentary accountability has driven sustained action and cross-government focus. The noble Lord, Lord Bird, talked about eight separate departments having some sort of responsibility for child poverty. That rigour should be applied to the fight against child poverty.
Peer-reviewed evidence makes it clear why this matters. International literature also shows that poverty has causal, long-term impacts on children’s health, educational attainment and future incomes. Children in low-income families are more likely to suffer poor health, lower school attainment and diminished life opportunities than their better-off peers. Moreover, robust reviews find that increased family income improves children’s educational and health outcomes, including school performance and future prospects.
I am not just reviewing the literature: I speak before noble Lords with my own lived experience as someone who was on free school meals, who got subsidised school clothing and who could not afford to go to college simply because we were poor. I had to go and work on a YTS training scheme in 1988 for £27.50 per week, working 40 hours a week unloading lorries. This is my lived experience that I bring before noble Lords today.
The evidence also reminds us that policy choices matter profoundly for children’s life chances, and systematic measurement and accountability mechanisms are essential to gauge impact. The Government’s recently published child poverty strategy, which was mentioned earlier, forecasts that the current suite of measures could lift an estimated 550,000 children out of relative poverty. We should all aim for that, but without legally enforceable targets, there is no guarantee that those outcomes will be delivered and sustained across future Administrations.
Targets give shape to ambition; they transform good intentions into measurable progress. We should also heed lessons from within the UK. Scotland was mentioned earlier. Scottish poverty targets might not be perfect, but they have a guided, sustained policy focus, which has shown that, when outcomes are measured and monitored, progress is more achievable.
This amendment is a practical tool to ensure that Ministers cannot evade responsibility for promises they have made. It is a mechanism that will help ensure that every policy aimed at education, well-being, housing and family support is tested against the yardstick of whether it moves us closer to reducing child poverty. I therefore urge noble Lords from all sides of the House to support the amendment and help ensure that the Government are held accountable to the children of our great nation.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to add my name and voice to the force of nature that is my noble friend Lord Bird. We have heard points made forcefully by all noble Lords around the House. I think noble Lords all know what I do for a living; I am sorry to be boring about this.
Lord Hampton (CB)
I am indeed a schoolteacher. Every day in Hackney I see the effects of poverty. We still have 55% free school meals in our school. Schoolteachers are very used to targets. Every pupil has target grades and if they do not hit their target grades, we have to explain why. It really does focus the mind. If we can solve child poverty, the entire Bill will be so much more powerful. The best way to solve poverty is with targets, so I beg the Government to accept the amendment.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to support the amendment in principle. I wonder whether we could get one or two simple targets to measure as indicators of potential poverty. Yesterday, a new report came out called, It’s Like Torture: Life in Temporary Accommodation for Neurodivergent Children and their Families. I believe that temporary accommodation for children is one of the biggest indicators of a lack of well-being, and it is linked to poverty. During Covid, we got almost every rough sleeper off the streets. It is time that we set a target to get every child in temporary accommodation into secure long-term accommodation. I urge the Government to consider that in relation to children’s well-being.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to follow so many powerful speeches and support my noble friend Lord Bird’s amendment. As a former chief executive of the English NHS, I know a thing or two about targets. There are some awful targets and some good ones. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Barber, is in his place, as the then Government’s “delivery tsar”, or whatever the right title was in those days.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Bird, is a warrior and passionate advocate for the unemployed and the poor.
I have a slightly different take on this. Yes, targets and strategies are important, but how often do we say that we will sort this issue out by establishing targets and strategies? Actually, what is important is doing something. It is no good just agreeing a target or strategy; it is about doing things, having policies and carrying out actions which make a real difference.
I am quite ashamed that we live in the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world, yet only the other day, the LGIU published information which said that, even with breakfast clubs and free school meals, teachers are increasingly feeding and clothing their pupils when they come to school. The fifth or sixth-richest country in the world and we are doing that. I am ashamed that there are a million young people not in a job, employment or training. That cannot be right in the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world. We need to take actions.
I congratulate the Government on doing away with the two-child benefit cap. That is an action which will make a huge difference. Some of the other policies that Governments quite rightly trot out, such as introducing breakfast clubs or doing this on clothing, are important but are not the big things that will make a difference to child poverty.
In the fifth or sixth-richest country in the world, it is also frightening to realise that 21% of adults live in poverty. So, it has to be—I hate using the word, but I will do it—a holistic approach. It is about making sure that people have jobs. If you have a well-paid, proper job, that helps your family and children. If you have a decent house, not with mould, damp or whatever it is, that helps your child, family and self-esteem. If you have decent schools, as the Bill is trying build on the work of the previous Government, that is life-changing as well.
So let us see actions: not more targets or strategy, but something happening.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his relentless focus on tackling poverty through the Big Issue and Big Issue Invest, investing in social enterprises, social purpose businesses and charities trying to end poverty and reduce inequality in the UK.
Your Lordships’ House is united in its determination to address child poverty and the range of complex issues that drive it. While we fully recognise the firm intent behind this amendment, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition retain a number of reservations, which we shared in Committee. We unequivocally hold a desire to reduce child poverty, but the issue is deeply complex. We have concerns that legally binding targets determined by central government risk overlooking the local and regional variances in the causality and the experiences of child poverty. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, highlighted in Committee, the pursuit of targets can often shift the focus on to particular statistics rather than people’s lived experiences. Central government must be able to adapt to ever developing needs and realities, in addition to enabling local authorities and organisations—which are often better placed to understand these esoteric local challenges—to act accordingly.
We will therefore welcome seeing the details of the Government’s child poverty strategy when it is published in the autumn, including new monitoring and evaluation arrangements to track progress, which, with the right strategy for delivery, should yield results. We once again thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his dedication to this vital issue. While we cannot support the amendment directly, we strongly welcome the intentions behind it.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 107, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, seeks to place a duty on the Secretary of State to set legally binding child poverty reduction targets. I agree with other noble Lords that we have a shared objective to tackle child poverty. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Bird, for his commitment, the campaigning that he does and for the engagement with the Government on child poverty. We had a very good meeting, I thought, where we talked about the work of the Big Issue and the rightful challenge to the Government to ensure that the structure within government and the measurement of our objectives meet the challenge that has been set here. I will talk about how we will ensure that this happens.
I am proud that this Government have now published our child poverty strategy, going far beyond rhetoric—as one noble Lord suggested that we should do. But I do not agree with those who have argued that all Governments are the same or that the strategy lacks credibility. Several noble Lords have quoted the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Its annual poverty report, published yesterday, states that the child poverty strategy is “hugely welcome”—particularly after the last Government made no progress in reducing poverty. The foundation welcomes the child poverty strategy delivering the projected biggest reduction in child poverty in a single Parliament.
We have been clear that our wide-ranging child poverty strategy will see the largest reduction in child poverty by any Government in a single Parliament, lifting 550,000 children out of poverty, principally through the expansion of free school meals and removing the two-child limit. These are both things that this Government have already done—to take up the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Storey. But, of course, we need to measure and demonstrate progress being made on this strategy.
I completely take on board that challenge. That is why the monitoring and evaluation framework, which was published alongside the strategy, set out that a baseline report will be published in summer 2026, with annual reporting on progress thereafter. It will be quite clear what progress the Government are making in a range of areas, and it will be possible to hold this Government to account for delivering on this crucial strategy and on our objectives. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that it will be very clear to voters that this Government will make progress, as the previous Labour Government did, in tackling the scourge of child poverty.
We recognise that our approach to monitoring and evaluation will need to evolve and adapt, as the strategy must, reflecting the dynamic nature of poverty and the broader social and economic factors that influence it. Although I understand the powerful point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about the government machinery for ensuring progress, I think a strength of the child poverty strategy is that it is explicitly cross-government. It recognises that it will need action in a range of different areas to tackle child poverty. I also take his point that there needs to be a central directing part of government. That is why we have committed to maintain a child poverty team with cross-government oversight by Ministers.
These clear reporting arrangements and the focus on child poverty within government show our commitment and leadership and will ensure that the progress that we make is transparent to all. We will continue to work closely with the whole sector committed to tackling child poverty, as we have done in developing the strategy. We believe that this is the best approach, rather than introducing statutory targets. For these reasons, I hope I have provided some assurance about the commitment of this Government, the broad action that we will take as a result of the strategy, and the measurement and evaluation that we will put in place in order to ensure that the public and this House can hold us to account for progress. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Bird, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Bird (CB)
Thank you very much. I have decided to join the Conservative Party. Can I meet the noble Earl afterwards and fill in the forms? Forgive me, I was only joking. I have never received such praise in the House.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Storey. I was trying to say that we need a new toolkit to dismantle poverty. Having a way of measuring it and of taking people to task because we say, “This is what you said you would achieve” can never be, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, the be-all and end-all. It must be part of the road towards the accumulation of evidence, the accumulation of opportunity and the accumulation of thinking that gets us somewhere we have never been before.
I do not want to pooh-pooh the Government or any Government for achieving the remarkable removal of 450,000 young people from poverty, but what about the other 4 million? That is the real problem. The real problem is that we are passing from generation to generation. A load of people who I have identified— 90% of the people I work with in homelessness, 90% of the people I work with in long-term unemployment, and 90% of the people I work with in the custodial system—come from the inheritance of poverty. They inherit poverty in the same way that Boris Johnson or David Cameron or anybody else inherits their position in the pecking order. If we have a situation where we have millions of people never arriving at the starting line of life, we have a major problem. That is where we need to concentrate our energy.
Lord Storey
“Action to promote the wellbeing of children in relation to harms-based access to social mediaIn section 11 of the Online Safety Act 2023 (children’s risk assessment duties), after subsection (6) insert—“(6A) Providers of regulated user-to-user services that are likely to be accessed by children, including such services as are designated by OFCOM as social media services for the purposes of this section, must submit as part of the children’s risk assessment a proposed minimum age of access to their service.(6B) The default and expected minimum age for access to a social media platform shall be 16 years.(6C) OFCOM must publish guidance defining the types of service to be treated as social media services for the purposes of subsection (6A).(6D) Providers of regulated user-to-user services that are likely to be accessed by children and social media services designated for the purposes of this section must keep the proposed minimum age of access under review and must re-evaluate it—(a) at such regular intervals as may be specified by OFCOM; and(b) where there is any substantial change to the service’s design, functionality, algorithms, business practices, or risk profile. (6E) Where the minimum age of access is set at 16 or below, providers must use a form of age assurance that is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not a particular user is of age to use the service.(6F) A provider may propose a minimum age of access above or below 16 where it—(a) can offer sufficient evidence that it meets Ofcom’s guidance concerning appropriate, risk-based minimum ages;(b) has due regard to relevant standards and principles of the UK General Data Protection Regulation;(c) has particular regard to the importance of protecting the rights and best interests of children, as recognised by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child;(d) has considered the potential impact of the service on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of children;(e) has investigated the extent to which the service’s design, functionalities, or features may encourage addictive or compulsive use; and(f) has considered and reviewed the use of algorithms for content recommendation, amplification, or targeted advertising.(6G) In assessing a proposed minimum age under this section, Ofcom must have regard to—(a) the children’s risk assessment submitted by the provider;(b) Ofcom’s existing risk and harms framework under this Act;(c) the potential impact of the service on the mental health and psychological wellbeing of children;(d) the extent to which the service’s design, functionalities, or features may encourage addictive or compulsive use; and(e) the use of algorithms for content recommendation, amplification, or targeted advertising.(6H) Ofcom must produce guidance setting out—(a) the evidential requirements for children’s risk assessments relating to minimum age determinations;(b) the criteria by which Ofcom will assess whether a service’s minimum age is appropriate; and(c) the intervals at which minimum age assessments must be reviewed.(6I) Where Ofcom determines, having regard to the matters in subsection (6G), that a proposed minimum age is insufficient to protect children from harm, it may require the provider to apply a higher minimum age of access, provided that the minimum age does not exceed 18 years.(6J) Ofcom will take enforcement action in relation to this section where—(a) the provider has failed to submit a suitable or sufficiently up-to-date children’s risk assessment;(b) the evidence submitted does not sufficiently justify the provider’s proposed minimum age;(c) the provider has failed to comply with a requirement imposed by OFCOM under subsection (6I); or(d) the provider has failed to introduce age assurance that is highly effective at correctly determining whether or not a particular user is of age to use the service.(6K) Where Ofcom considers that a failure to comply with a requirement under subsection (6I) presents an urgent and significant risk of harm to children, it may apply directly for a business disruption order under this Act.”” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would take a harms-based approach to user-to-user regulation, meaning that children’s access to platforms would be based on the level of risk of harm attached to said platform.
Lord Storey (LD)
We on these Benches are strongly committed to safeguarding children and protecting them from the risks of the online world. As we recall, the noble Lord, Lord Nash, proposed an amendment that was a straightforward ban on social media. The Government are proposing a three-month big conversation, from which we will, perhaps, come together and agree a way forward.
On these Benches, however, we believe that it is not as simple as that. A blanket ban is not that easy. We think that some aspects of social media are very important for young people and very supportive of young people. Rather than a blanket ban, we would want to see the dangerous elements of social media banned.
Of course, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Nash, was carried. It will come back at ping-pong. I hope that will be the opportunity—I promise to come to every meeting—for the parties to come together and agree a way forward. In the meantime, we on these Benches would like to test the opinion of the House on our Amendment 108.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“Free school meals etc: information sharing(1) Section 110 of the Education Act 2005 (supply of information) is amended as follows.(2) In subsection (4), after “local authority” insert “or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England”(3) In subsection (5)—(a) at the end of paragraph (a), omit “or”;(b) at the end of paragraph (b), insert“or(c) to the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England,”.(4) After subsection (5) insert—“(5A) Information to which subsection (1) or (2) applies may be supplied to the Secretary of State, or any person providing services to the Secretary of State, for use for the purpose of determining whether relevant financial assistance is payable or expendable in respect of a person in England.(5B) Information to which subsection (2) applies may be supplied to a local authority in England or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England for use for the purpose mentioned in subsection (5A).(5C) Information received by virtue of subsection (5A) may be supplied—(a) to another person to whom it could have been supplied under that subsection,(b) to a local authority in England, or(c) to the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England,for use for the purpose mentioned in subsection (5A). (5D) A person who (after receiving information by virtue of this section) makes a determination described in subsection (3) or (5A) in respect of a person in England may communicate the determination to—(a) a parent of the person in respect of whom the determination was made,(b) a local authority in England, or(c) the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England.(5E) The communication may include information about the statutory provision or the arrangements under which the person in respect of whom the determination is made is eligible for free school lunches.”(5) After subsection (6), insert—“(6A) The references in this section to a local authority in England include references to any person exercising on behalf of such an authority functions relating to eligibility for free school lunches and milk or relating to relevant financial assistance.”(6) For subsections (7) and (8) substitute—“(7) For the purposes of this section, determining “eligibility for free school lunches and milk” means determining—(a) whether school lunches or milk must be provided for a person, free of charge and on request, in accordance with—(i) section 512ZB(2) or (3) of the Education Act 1996,(ii) regulations under section 342 of that Act (non- maintained special schools), or(iii) Academy arrangements;(b) whether school lunches or milk may or must be provided for a person, free of charge, by a local authority in England or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England in accordance with one or both of the following—(i) the terms of relevant financial assistance;(ii) guidance issued by the Secretary of State.(8) The reference to school lunch in subsection (7)(b) includes food equivalent to a school lunch provided for a person educated otherwise than at school.(8A) In this section—“the appropriate authority” means—(a) in relation to a community, foundation or voluntary school or a community or foundation special school, the governing body;(b) in relation to a pupil referral unit, the local authority which maintains the unit;(c) in relation to any other kind of relevant school, the proprietor;“functions relating to social security” includes functions relating to Part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;“relevant financial assistance” means financial assistance given under section 14 of the Education Act 2002—(a) to a local authority in England or the appropriate authority of a relevant school in England, and(b) in connection with child welfare or the provision of education;“relevant school” means—(a) an Academy school,(b) an alternative provision Academy,(c) a community, foundation or voluntary school,(d) a community or foundation special school,(e) a non-maintained special school (within the meaning given by section 337A of the Education Act 1996), (f) a pupil referral unit, or(g) a city technology college or city college for the technology of the arts;“school lunch” has the same meaning as in section 512 of the Education Act 1996.””Member’s explanatory statement
This clause would amend section 110 of the Education Act 2005 to allow for information to be shared in order to identify persons who are eligible for free school meals, or are intended beneficiaries of financial assistance given to local authorities and schools under the Education Act 2002.
“Free school lunches: eligibilityIn section 512ZB of the Education Act 1996 (free school lunches and milk)—(a) in subsection (2)(a), for “subsection (4) or (4A) (or both)” substitute “subsection (4), (4A) or (4D)”;(b) after subsection (4C) insert—“(4D) A person is within this subsection if—(a) they are a registered pupil at a maintained school or pupil referral unit in England,(b) they or their parent is in receipt of universal credit, and(c) they are not within subsection (4);and the meaning of “maintained school” given by subsection (4C) applies for the purposes of this subsection.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide for free school lunches to be provided (on request) to any pupil at a school maintained by a local authority in England who has a parent (or who is themselves) in receipt of universal credit.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Pitkeathley) (Lab)
I should tell the House that if Amendment 114 is agreed to then I cannot call Amendment 117 for reasons of pre-emption.
Clause 30: School uniforms: limits on branded items
Amendment 114
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley
“(1) The appropriate authority of a relevant school in England may not require a pupil at the school to have to buy branded items of school uniform for use during a school year which cost more in total to purchase than a specified monetary amount, to be reviewed annually.(1A) The Secretary of State may by regulations specify the monetary amount that may apply to—(a) a primary pupil, and(b) a secondary pupil.(1B) A statutory instrument containing regulations under subsection (1A) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment imposes a monetary cap, rather than an item cap, on branded uniform items.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendments 114 and 118 in this group on the cost of school uniforms. This issue is about far more than clothing; it goes to the heart of the cost of living crisis. It affects children’s dignity and well-being, and, ultimately, their ability to learn and succeed in school. For too many families, the start of the school year is no longer a moment of optimism; it is about anxiety. Parents dread opening the uniform price list, knowing that compliance is mandatory and flexibility is limited. Branded blazers, logoed jumpers, PE kits and specialist items are often required from a single supplier, with costs running to hundreds of pounds per child, payable up front, when household budgets are already under severe strain.
The evidence is clear. Research commissioned by the Department for Education shows that the average cost of school uniforms and PE kits is close to £400 per child, rising to over £440 for secondary school pupils. These are not trivial sums. For families with two or three children, the cost can exceed £1,000 in a single year. For parents who are on low incomes, with insecure jobs or reliant on benefits, these costs are simply not manageable. The reality for many households is stark. Parents report cutting back on food, delaying rent or utility payments, or taking on high street debt, simply to ensure children are not penalised for incorrect uniforms. Some skip meals so their children can attend school properly dressed. Others are humiliated into asking schools for help or exemptions, knowing that support is inconsistent and often discriminatory.
The consequences fall most heavily on children. When families cannot afford the required uniforms, pupils are sent home, isolated from lessons or disciplined because their clothing does not meet school rules. Others attend school embarrassed and anxious that they stand out or are judged for their family’s circumstances. This sense of shame undermines confidence and damages well-being. This matters not only for children’s mental health but for their education itself. There is strong evidence that stress and financial insecurity are linked to poor attendance, reduced concentration and low attainment. A child worried about being reprimanded for their uniform is not focused on learning. Excessive uniform costs become a barrier to education rather than supporting it.
We must also recognise that this burden is not evenly distributed. Families in areas already facing high levels of deprivation, including parts of the north-east, the Midlands and coastal communities, report significantly greater difficulties affording school uniforms. High uniform costs in these areas compound existing disadvantage and widen attainment gaps that the Government rightly say they wish to close. A system in which affordability varies by postcode is neither fair nor defensible.
That is why my first amendment proposes a cap on the total cost of branded uniform items, rather than limiting the number. The item-based cap is insufficient. Single branded blazers can cost £50 or more and a logoed PE kit even more. What matters to families is not how many items are required but how much they are forced to pay. The clear financial cap is fairer, more transparent and more effective, while allowing schools flexibility.
My second amendment addresses the continued application of VAT on compulsory school uniforms, particularly for those of a certain size. In effect, this is a tax on clothing that children are legally required to wear to access education. The zero rating for school uniforms up to the age of 16 would provide immediate, targeted relief, particularly for families with multiple children and for those on the lowest incomes. These amendments do not undermine discipline, standards or school identity; uniforms can foster belonging and pride. But no child should feel ashamed or excluded because their parents cannot afford an overpriced item with a logo. If we are serious about supporting families, improving well-being and narrowing attainment gaps, I urge noble Lords to support these amendments.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I very much support all the amendments around trying to make uniforms more affordable, but I want to speak about a health time bomb that we are sitting on, much in the way that we spoke about smoking some years ago, or ultra-processed food. It is the whole question about PFAS in our systems: in everything we eat and touch, but in particular, in this case, in school uniforms. Uniforms that are made from fabrics that contain PFAS constantly contact your skin and the results and the emerging evidence are now incontrovertible. I also support Amendment 119A from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, about the health, generally, of uniforms.
Forever chemicals, as they are commonly referred to, are a group of over 10,000 chemicals that exist over many products. We call them “forever chemicals” partly because they are so widespread and partly because, so far, they do not appear to break down. They are relatively new, so we do not know whether they are going to break down in 100 years. Right now, though, they are not breaking down. The quickest way for any of us here to find out whether we have them in our system is to get the test, give a drop of blood and find out what is in your body.
Serious evidence is emerging. Yesterday morning I signed an NDA with Netflix in order to watch its newest documentary on the question of forever chemicals. In particular, this was around children, babies and fertility, but it obviously stretched to the wider implications for all of us, and in particular our children, because they have grown up in the plastic era. There is now evidence from Denmark to suggest that prenatal exposure is associated with reduced IQ scores in seven year-old children, and in Germany, there is new research showing that PFAS is significantly associated with reduced tetanus, rubella and diphtheria immunity. So it has effects all over the place. We must remember that these chemicals have been put into systems: not just our food and what we touch, or what we make things out of. There has been no FSA approval and there has been no FDA approval—it has just happened. All these chemicals are made by oil companies; plastic is a product of oil. Saudi Aramco is now the largest producer of plastic in the world, and production is growing as I speak.
Kids are thought to be particularly vulnerable; they have been found to have higher concentrations of PFAS in their blood than adults. One route of exposure is through the skin, and this brings me to the subject of school uniforms. They are often used in clothes to provide what they call “extra qualities”. So, if you get clothing that is “stain resistant” or “easy iron”—which, of course, is very tempting to someone on a time budget—these qualities in fact last for very little time. As you wash the clothes, they disappear, and then those chemicals end up in our watercourses. They are non-essential. There is no cost implication whatever to using them, apart from a gimmicky bit of advertising. I do not feel that the Minister really addressed this in Committee. Among other things, she said that
“the UK product safety laws require all consumer products to be safe, and manufacturers must ensure the safety of products before they are placed on the market”.—[Official Report, 3/7/25; col. 907.]
Turning this around, could the Minister update the House on whether the Government believe that the now overwhelming body of evidence that is emerging that PFAS is causing detrimental health outcomes is incorrect? Do the Government believe that the approach of our close neighbours, such as France and most of Europe, which have banned the use of over 10,000 substances, is in vain? At present, neither our product safety laws nor UK REACH is preventing harmful products being placed on the market. They are not working to protect children or adults.
In the summer, the Minister in Committee said there was work
“across government to help assess levels of PFAS occurring in the environment, their sources and potential risks, to inform policy and regulatory approaches”.—[Official Report, 3/7/25; col. 906.]
That was quite a long time ago. What work is being done, or are we just acknowledging a problem and not doing anything?
I appreciate that this is largely the responsibility of Defra, but it seems that our current approach is waiting for this disaster to happen. Would it not be more prudent to take steps at least to make schools and parents aware of this growing risk? An example of this is in Jersey—I appreciate that it is not part of the UK, but I happen to have been born there—where people are being treated with bloodletting, essentially leeching without leeches, because firefighting foam got into the watercourses and drinking water and filled them with PFAS. The state has taken some steps to reduce that, but, even then, our response was glacial.
I was disappointed that the revised environmental improvement plan, which was published before Christmas, said almost nothing about PFAS, but that the Government were
“investigating whether to restrict other PFAS in fire-fighting foams”.
I do not understand why we need to expend resources investigating what should be incredibly obvious. There was nothing about PFAS from other sources, and, unironically, the following paragraph said that we were a leader on chemical management. That is hard to believe. If this is the only work that the Government have done since Committee, I put it to the House that it is inadequate.
However, we have a chance here to make some small progress. This amendment would ban the use of PFAS in school uniforms. Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause would set the limit for residual PFAS and textiles to
“no more than 50 mg”.
This would not allow producers to use a small amount of PFAS, because it is so prevalent in the water systems and in all our systems that you cannot—as was confirmed in the Netflix documentary that I watched last night—get the level back to zero. Noble Lords should find this fact alone really disturbing and I hope that it serves as an impetus. Our close neighbours in France and Denmark have banned the use of PFAS in all clothes, not just kids’ clothes. Indeed, in France’s case, it is banned much more widely, and there is an expectation that an EU ban will come quite soon.
While my amendment has been drafted within the confines of the Bill that we are debating, I urge the Minister to encourage her colleagues to match the EU’s approach, which is following the OECD’s definition of over 10,000 substances as PFAS and banning their use, rather than inventing our own definition and a new list. I accept that there is much about PFAS that we do not know for certain, but, as I say, I watched a Netflix documentary on this last night and, without a doubt, there is hard and fast evidence linking chemicals in our blood to declining birth rates, falling sperm counts and all sorts of other very complex medical situations.
I therefore ask for two things in the near term. First, can we change the statutory guidance that schools follow around considering
“sustainability and ethical supply chains, as well as engaging with parents and pupils when tendering for uniform contracts”.—[Official Report, 3/7/25; col. 907.]
Could something more specific be added to that guidance, so that the school uniform providers that are invited to tender must provide details of whether their garments contain PFAS? We are not saying “Remove it”: just put it on the label. Can a recommendation that schools aim to source school uniforms without PFAS possibly be included? If this is not possible, and they go ahead and contract a supplier whose uniform items contain PFAS, can those suppliers be required to label items so that schools and parents can make an informed decision? That is not going to cost us more money, and it is not just about saying that everything must be made of cotton. Cotton is obviously better, but cotton gets given stain-removal qualities and so on, which can also be bad. But this would put the responsibility fair and square on the producer.
Secondly, can the Government, at the very least, urgently consult on a wholesale ban of PFAS? If we do not, we risk becoming the dumping ground in Europe for all the school uniforms and other garments that the European Union is going to start rejecting and is starting to reject from now. That would be a very bad place to be.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, who has powerfully made the case for Amendment 119. She referred to the Netflix documentary that we have not yet seen. I am going to go back a little further to a review article that came out in January last year, titled Effects of Early-life PFAS Exposure on Child Neurodevelopment: A Review of the Evidence and Research Gaps. It looked at 35 studies, most of which were in the previous five years. It found subtle but potentially very significant impacts of low-level exposure on population-wide neurodevelopment. What does that actually mean? It means reduced cognitive development and language development in infants and increased behavioural issues such as hyperactivity in childhood.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of the Knowledge Schools Trust, a multi-academy trust that I co-founded, which now has nine schools in it.
When I tabled this amendment in Committee, there was some confusion as to whether the cap on the number of branded items of school uniform proposed in the Bill applied to extracurricular activities. Are mandatory branded items for an activity that is not itself mandatory, such as being in a school sports team, outwith the cap or included in it, even if they have been lent or donated to the school free of charge? The noble Lord, Lord Watson of Invergowrie, believed that they were outwith the cap—and therefore Amendment 117, which would exempt items loaned or gifted to a school, would be unnecessary.
The Department for Education has now published draft statutory guidance on how schools should interpret the uniform clauses in the Bill, making it clear that branded items that are mandatory for extracurricular activities, even if they are provided to children free of charge, are included in the cap. It says:
“All loaned or gifted branded items will be captured within the limit if they are required to be worn. However, schools can continue to lend, give out or make available for sale additional branded items, as long as wearing those items is optional”.
That could not be clearer: if a school insists that children playing for a school team are required to wear a branded item so that their fellow team members can distinguish them from members of the opposing team, for instance, those items are included in the cap, which I remind noble Lords is three items for primary schools and four for secondary schools, including a school tie. That includes items loaned or gifted to the school.
At this point, I acknowledge that the Government have allowed some exceptions to this rule. When I spoke in Committee, I pointed out that the cap would make it impossible for schools to maintain a Combined Cadet Force, even though the uniform for those troops is provided free of charge by the Ministry of Defence.
The draft DfE guidance says:
“The uniform items for scouts or cadet forces are not captured by the limit”.
I am grateful to the Minister for that concession, but why not extend the exemption to all items lent or gifted to a school, given that they will not cost parents or carers anything? I understand why the Government want to reduce the financial burden on parents and carers by limiting the number of items of school uniform they are required to buy—although, in truth, I think that schools can be trusted to manage that themselves, and do manage it themselves, with due regard for the needs of low-income families.
For some reason, the Government believe that this is an area in which state intervention is required, but what possible reason do they have for including loaned or donated items in the cap? The only explanation I can think of is that it is a residue of the hostility to school uniforms that used to be fashionable among the left-wing intelligentsia in the 1960s and 1970s. I thought that this hostility was a thing of the past and that the argument for school uniforms had been comprehensively won. In case the Minister is unfamiliar with this argument, I refer her to the current DfE guidance, published on her department’s website, which eloquently makes the case for school uniforms:
“We strongly encourage schools to have a uniform, as it can play a key role in … promoting the ethos of a school … providing a sense of belonging and identity … setting an appropriate tone for education. By creating a common identity among all pupils regardless of background, a uniform can … act as a social leveller … reduce bullying and peer pressure to wear the latest fashions or other expensive clothes”.
All those arguments apply as much to branded items for team sports and other extra-curricular activities as they do to branded items of school uniform. I hope the Minister will recognise the wisdom of her own department on this matter and, if she does not trust schools to manage these issues fairly themselves, at least remove lent and gifted items from the cap.
Lord Nash (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 114 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, and my noble friend Lord Young’s Amendment 117. It is clearly a better solution to have a monetary limit than a number—that just seems obvious. As for gifted items, I could not agree more with my noble friend. Are we really saying that if I manage to secure for my multi-academy trust some free gifted strip from a football club, I have to say to those people, as a charity, “I’m sorry, I know I’m a charity, but the Government have passed a law which requires me to say no, I can’t take your benefit in kind. I’m sorry”? It is potty, because I am clearly going to have at least three other items apart from a tie. It is clearly daft, and I very much look forward to the noble Baroness’s explanation as to why they are so insistent on this point.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 117 in the name of my noble friend Lord Young of Acton, to which I have added my name. Although it may seem a small point, it matters. The draft guidance perfectly illustrates the consequences of poor policy-making: the cart was put before the horse and an announcement was made about reducing the number of branded items but without the clarity about the policy goal that should have informed the drafting of the legislation.
I will not repeat the examples given by others, but it is unfortunate that the draft guidance is so unequivocal. It is the kind of Kafkaesque rule that brings officialdom into ill repute, and it probably will not save parents a single penny. I add that if the policy goal is narrowly to save all parents money on school uniforms, this could be better achieved through Amendment 114, which would give schools more flexibility and avoid the problem that Amendment 117 is intended to address—although I believe that an automatic inflation adjustment should be incorporated to avoid the messiness of an annual review.
If this limit is enacted, will the Minister ensure that two particular impacts are fully evaluated. First, what is the social impact on children? In demonising branded clothing, the Government have lost sight of part of the value of uniforms. Uniforms are not only about badging and encouraging identification with an institution but about having all children wear clothing that is genuinely identical in quality and cut, not just broadly similar in appearance. We all know how sensitive the young are to status markers, such as having the right—usually expensive—trainers, even when the differences are all but invisible to the adult eye. Fewer school-branded items may mean more pressure on children to have the highest-status version of the unbranded items, which will inevitably bear hardest on the poorest children, so this should be evaluated.
The evaluation should also consider whether parents spend less money not only on school uniforms but on children’s clothing overall. If the change reduces spend on branded items but leads to poorer families being pressured into spending more rather than less overall on children’s clothes, it should be counted as a failure. I hope the Minister can reassure me on those points.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I add my support to Amendment 114, which I believe provides a more flexible approach to achieving the Government’s aims of keeping down the cost of school uniforms while ensuring that the legislation before us is better future-proofed to potential changes in individual school policies. For instance, noble Lords may have seen reports of the growing number of schools, particularly primary schools, that are replacing traditional uniforms with activewear uniforms that consist of practical, weather-appropriate sportswear that is worn throughout the day. A recent Times article highlighted polling that found that 67% of primary school teachers would support their school adopting an always-active uniform policy and that schools that have done so have reported improvements in academic achievement, well-being and attendance.
This is just one example of how attitudes to school uniform are already changing. It may well be that the cap on items that the Government are talking about becomes irrelevant as attitudes to school uniform change, but surely it is better to have an annually reviewed monetary cap that allows schools to develop their uniform to the requirements of the pupils, parents and governing bodies than to arbitrarily choose a number of items which may, in the long term, mean that legislation needs to be revisited anyway.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group, particularly Amendment 117, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, and Amendment 119, which was so powerfully and scarily introduced by my noble friend Baroness Boycott.
These clauses came from a very real attempt by the Government to limit parents’ spending at a time when the cost of living is so high. I spoke at great length at Second Reading and in Committee about how important school uniforms are. I talked about a 14 year-old girl whom I taught and most of whose pregnancy was hidden by her blazer. It is important, particularly for girls, that changing shapes are hidden during school. It promotes equality and unity.
Amendment 117 is particularly good about sport. I remember the first time we were given a full kit with all our numbers on it in Dyson Perrins CofE high school’s under-15 rugby side. It made us feel unbeatable—until we got beaten. Having listened to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, we need to make sure that they are not going to poison us. Local businesses often sponsor kits for local football teams; it seems churlish and idiotic not to accept it.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I speak briefly in support of Amendment 114. Throughout my teaching career, I taught in the most deprived communities on Merseyside, and I always observed that the parents with the least were the ones who took the greatest pride in how their children were attired. I pay huge tribute to them.
I understand where the Government are coming from on this: uniforms cost a lot. However, as I said in Committee, this is not the way to do it. There are so many “ands”, “ifs” and “buts”. For example, a uniform in the school colours that consists of a kilt, a braided blazer and a jumper can cost a fortune compared to five items that are simply branded. It is quite difficult to know how to move forward, but the old way of doing it was probably better, whereby you could obtain a uniform grant, and many local authorities still do that.
We all share the same goal of making school uniforms affordable for every family, but good intentions without practical wisdom can lead us precisely where we do not wish to go. I fear that if we are faced with a three-item cap, this could happen. Let me speak plainly about what happens when policy meets the playground. The Schoolwear Association tells us that 85% of retailers believe schools will drop branded PE kits entirely to avoid breaching the cap. When that happens, families do not suddenly pay less; they pay more. They turn to Nike or Adidas, the commercial brands that cost nearly double what specialist school suppliers charge. An £11 school PE top becomes a £20 branded alternative.
It gets worse. Schools in the West Midlands are already dropping particular sports from the curriculum because the new guidance prevents them having school-specific sport kits for those activities. One school that was mentioned in the Times last week has adopted as its school kit “casual sportswear”. As I say, that is not really a school uniform, but it is very expensive to wear, and no doubt the branded sports kit as a school uniform—albeit three items—can be far more expensive than a five-item school uniform.
We risk pricing children out of sport entirely, not through expensive uniforms but through their absence. The child whose parents cannot afford the expensive commercial kit will become the one left on the sidelines. The very children we seek to protect become more visible in their disadvantage, not less.
We have learnt, sometimes painfully, that good legislation must be workable legislation. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, offers us a different approach, one that focuses on actual cost rather than arbitrary numbers. It gives schools clarity about what they can require families to spend, while allowing children the opportunity to be in branded clothing.
I am also in favour of the very important amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. My only observation is that many clothing items of course come from China, and it would be difficult to get the Chinese Government to stop child labour, never mind putting chemicals into items, but it is an issue that we as a society should certainly look towards.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, we have listened with interest to the valuable contributions during this debate, and we thank all noble Lords who have both spoken to and tabled amendments in this group.
Amendment 114, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, seeks to fulfil the Government’s commitment to lowering the cost of school uniforms, but by a monetary cap rather than a limit on branded items. The principle of focusing on the actual cost to families, rather than on the number of branded items, underlines His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition’s support for both this amendment and for Amendment 117 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton. Both these amendments seek to address the real issue at the centre of the Government’s concern: bringing down the cost of school uniforms.
It surely makes sense that items provided or loaned free of charge to a pupil should be excluded from the restriction on branded items, on the basis that this imposes no financial burden on families and gives schools greater flexibility, while acknowledging that they already try to help pupils where possible.
I turn to Amendment 118 from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, which seeks to extend the VAT zero rating for certain items of pupils’ school uniform to the age of 16. As was noted in Committee, children’s clothing and footwear designed for children under 14 years of age already attracts a zero rate of VAT if they meet specific conditions. We would therefore be grateful to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to address the issue of raising the zero VAT threshold from 14 to 16, which would address noble Lords’ concerns.
Amendment 119, in the name of my noble kinswoman Lady Boycott, seeks to prohibit school uniform items which contain PFAS chemicals. Amendment 119A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, similarly requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on the health implications of school uniforms. While existing guidance asks schools to consider sustainability and ethical supply chains, my noble kinswoman is entirely correct: we must also consider health concerns. We look forward to hearing from the Minister about what work the Government will commit to when undertaking these many important issues.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, it seems appropriate to follow the debate on child poverty with a debate about the action this Government are taking to cut costs for families—in this case, our commitment to cutting the cost of school uniforms for families by limiting the number of branded items that schools can require pupils to have. This will give parents the flexibility to buy more items from a range of retailers, including high street retailers, and to make spending decisions that suit their circumstances.
Turning to the specifics of the amendments, Amendment 117, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Young of Acton, would exclude from the limit on branded uniform items which have been loaned or provided free of charge to pupils. It would allow schools to require pupils to wear more than three branded items of uniform—or more than four where a secondary school includes a branded tie—provided that parents do not have to pay for them. I appreciate the issues and concerns underpinning this amendment, particularly the need to preserve schools’ ability to lend or give branded uniform, or the ability to accept loans or gifts of sports equipment, but it is not necessary.
Following my letter to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, on this matter, I wrote to Peers highlighting the recent draft statutory guidance, confirming that optional items are excluded from the limit. Schools may still sell, loan, or provide additional branded items, provided that wearing them is optional. For example, schools will still be able to loan or provide a specific kit for inter-school sports competitions, as many already do. However, schools should not require pupils to wear branded items for activities unless they count towards the limit. If a pupil cannot or does not wish to wear a loaned branded item, schools should allow a suitable alternative such as a plain sports shirt in a similar colour, or another branded item already part of their PE kit or uniform.
Speaking as the former goalkeeper of the Dyson Perrins CofE Academy hockey team, and goal attack of the netball team, I think I would have been perfectly able to recognise my team, even if one or two of them had been wearing a school-coloured plain shirt rather than the PE kit that had been loaned to them.
I am not sure that it is the disastrous impact that noble Lords here are suggesting, but what is disastrous is where the cost of uniform becomes a barrier to participation at school, including in extracurricular activities. As the noble Lord said, the limit applies only to items required by schools and not external bodies. Our guidance clarifies that Scouts and cadet force uniforms are not captured. As I explained in Committee, we want clarity for parents. This amendment risks confusion about whether a compulsory branded item counts towards the statutory limit, depending on how it was obtained. There is also a risk that, if schools become overly reliant on loaning out key elements of uniform, parents may fear being charged for expensive replacements if those items are lost or damaged.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to what was a fantastic debate. However, I would still like to test the opinion of your Lordships’ House.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 117 has been superseded by pre-emption, so it cannot be called.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a parent must obtain local authority consent to withdraw their child from school if the authority has taken action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 at any time during the period of 5 years prior to the application.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, before I turn to the groups concerning home education, I thank noble Lords for the thoughtful contributions made in Committee and those who have engaged since then in detailed discussions with my department. I want to reiterate that most families who choose to home-educate do so with their child’s best interests at heart. They do not present safeguarding concerns, and it is not the Government’s intention to place unnecessary burdens on them.
However, we must face the reality that some children are in unsafe or unsuitable education and, unlike children in school, they can lack regular contact with adults who can safeguard and support them. These measures seek to strike the right balance between recognising parents’ right to home-educate while ensuring that vulnerable children do not slip through the cracks. They follow repeated attempts by the previous Government and others to legislate for children not in school registers. Of course, new evidence recently has come to light that further underlines the need for appropriate information sharing, earlier identification of children’s needs and stronger safeguards for home-educated children.
The local child safeguarding practice review into the tragic death of Sara Sharif, the NSPCC’s Tipping Point report, and Ofsted and CQC’s thematic review into children not in school all underline the need for more touchpoints for children who are currently being home-educated or children in school who may become home-educated in future. In reflecting on the findings of the Sara Sharif review, it is important to be clear that, while home education was relevant to Sara’s visibility to agencies, her death was caused by the actions of her father, not by her being home-educated. The review identified serious system-level failures across multiple agencies. That is why the Bill contains a broader set of reforms to strengthen multi-agency practice, improve information sharing and enhance professional oversight and decision-making across children’s social care.
The children not in school provisions and the amendments that we are tabling in response to the review serve a distinct and more targeted purpose. They are designed to provide proportionate safeguards at the specific points where children can become less visible to professionals, without replicating or expanding the child protection system. These measures will help to ensure that children who may benefit from early help or additional support are not overlooked, while maintaining protections for family privacy and parental choice.
Our government amendments improve safeguards for vulnerable children, cut red tape in relation to children not in school registers and strengthen the support offer for home-educating parents. Statutory guidance will provide greater reassurance on data protection and explain the routes of complaint and appeal for parents.
Government Amendment 120 would extend the consent requirement to parents of children who have been on child protection plans in the last five years. It is important to remember that child protection plans are not entered into lightly. They are reserved for those children who are suffering or at risk of significant harm, and for whom urgent, co-ordinated action is needed to keep them safe.
Children do come off child protection plans. With the right support, family circumstances can stabilise, risks can reduce and families can make meaningful, sustained change. I commend those parents who work constructively with support from social care services. Their commitment is often what makes it possible for child protection plans to be discharged. But many families who come off child protection plans need ongoing support to sustain progress. Removing a child from school for home education could be destabilising and make them vulnerable to harm again. That is why we have tabled this amendment: to provide an additional check for children who have recently come off plans, checking that their progress can be sustained if they move into home education.
Government Amendments 165, 169 and 172 would allow local authorities to require school attendance, where it is in a child’s best interests, for children who have been on a child protection plan in the last five years. School is not only a place where a child can receive a suitable full-time education. For some children it is also a protective space—somewhere they are guaranteed access to pastoral support and adults outside the home. For children who are experiencing or are at risk of significant harm, it can be in their best interests to attend school for this reason.
Given the potential for children who have recently been discharged from plans to become vulnerable to harm again without continuing support and engagement, it is right that we extend the power for local authorities to require these children to attend school via the school attendance order process if it would be in the child’s best interests to do so. Crucially, my Amendment 172 would ensure that any school attendance order made on these grounds must be revoked once the five-year period has passed, provided that there is no current child protection plan or Section 47 inquiry.
Government Amendments 125 and 126 would provide for a pilot scheme in selected areas under which local authorities must meet with parents wishing to withdraw their child from school for home education. Any decision to introduce these meetings nationally following the pilot would be subject to affirmative regulations and a consultation.
The review into the death of Sara Sharif recommended that a meeting take place before children about whom there are concerns are removed from school, as a way of preventing children who are being harmed from slipping under the radar. Our amendments also look to address the separate concerns that have been raised in both Houses about families who are driven to home education because they feel that their child’s needs are not being met in school. No parent should find themselves in that position.
If parents choose to home-educate, it should be an informed decision made with a clear understanding of the alternatives, the commitments involved and the support available from their local authority. These meetings are intended to help parents in their decision-making process as well as to identify children who may need support.
In pilot areas, before their child’s name is removed from the school roll, parents wishing to home-educate their child would be required to attend a meeting with the local authority. The meeting would cover their reasons for wishing to home-educate; the responsibilities of local authorities and parents in relation to home education; how the parent plans to secure a suitable full-time education for their child; safeguarding and welfare; any support needs the child may have and how these could be met; and anything else relevant to the parent’s decision to withdraw the child for home education.
Children will be required to attend the meeting with their parents unless exceptional circumstances apply. It is important that children have opportunities to express their views, and this meeting would provide one such opportunity. Statutory guidance would set out circumstances in which attendance may not be appropriate.
Unless a parent requires permission from the local authority to home-educate their child—such as when their child is on a child protection plan—and that permission is declined, the child’s name must be deleted from the school roll after the meeting has concluded. The child will then be added to the local authority’s children not in school register and the authority will record the outcome of the meeting. If the local authority has concerns based on the meeting, these should be followed up.
We expect that many parents would welcome these meetings as a constructive starting point with their local authority, but recognise that some may feel anxious about this requirement. That is why this amendment requires a pilot scheme and not an immediate national rollout. We want to be confident that these meetings would deliver clear benefits for children and families.
To provide further reassurance, the amendment will place clear limits on the pilot: it must be introduced within two years of the section containing the pilot and consent measure coming into force; it must run for only two to five years; and it may involve no more than 30% of local authorities in England or Wales. Further details on the pilot will be set out in regulations subject to the affirmative procedure and in statutory guidance, which will be informed by a consultation.
Government Amendment 131 would require local authorities to assess a child’s home environment within 15 days of them becoming registered on their children not in school register, and to consider the other settings where the child is being educated, of which the local authority is aware, within 15 days of recording this information on their registers. As part of this new requirement, local authorities will be empowered to visit the child in their home.
This responds directly to a recommendation from the review into the death of Sara Sharif, which made clear the importance of setting a clear expectation that local authorities consider the suitability of a child’s home environment as soon as possible after withdrawal from school. The most straightforward way for a local authority to meet this requirement is to visit the family in their home at the point of registration. For many families, a visit from their elective home education officer is already a routine part of an annual check-in.
As local authorities will be required to consider the child’s home and empowered to request a home visit, we have also tabled Amendment 134, which requires registers to hold information about any address that a registered child lives at in addition to their primary home. This amendment is intended to address circumstances where a child has more than one residence—for example, where they reside with each separated parent.
Government Amendment 145 would allow the outcomes of any home visits or considerations of the child’s home and education settings to be prescribed for inclusion in children not in school registers. If local authorities are required to actively consider these environments, it is important that the conclusions that they have drawn are recorded. This would ensure an audit trail of any concerns and the steps taken in response.
Lord Crisp
“(4A) Condition B does not apply to a child who has been adopted, if the action specified in subsection (4)(b) occurred before the child was adopted.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that parents are not required to receive local authority consent to withdraw adopted children from school if action was taken under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 in respect of the child before they were adopted.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister that the Government have moved on some of the concerns raised by me and others, particularly about some of the detail required on the register. However, I of course want to press her to move further. A lot of new and significant amendments have just arrived. I want to make two general points relating to those amendments and then comment on several of them.
I believe that the Government need to revisit their whole policy on home education. We are debating a significant set of amendments very late in the day which are creating a new regime, but I do not think the full implications have been thought through. Let me give one example which is relevant to this group and to other areas. As many noble Lords will know, most local authorities—I believe it is most rather than just many—hold annual meetings with or request annual reports from home-educating parents in their area. These are done regularly on the basis of case law, which says that local authorities are entitled to ask for an annual meeting or an annual report, which involves quite a lot of work.
I do not understand why these have been ignored and the additional requirements for meetings, information and monitoring are not built around them. There seems to be inconsistency in developing the policy. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain—either on this group or on one of the groups to do with information on activities on the register—why the Government have chosen to ignore this annual reporting system which exists in so many places. Presumably, it was an explicit decision to do so. Can I also ask her to confirm that parents will still have to comply with requests for annual reports or meetings? Or can they now just say, “Look at the register”?
Home education has changed enormously in the last few years and policy certainly needs to reflect this, but it needs to be based on a detailed examination of what is going on. Most importantly—we have not really spent time in Committee on this—we need to understand in some detail the causes of the big increase in the last few years, driven by parents who believe that schools are failing their children, many of whom have special needs and require special hope. These are big questions, and it is important that the Government take this beyond this Bill and look at the wider policy. After all, those parents are taking on emotionally and financially demanding responsibilities. Why do so few head teachers use their powers of flexibility to accommodate children in the way that their parents would want them to? Some of those issues are around mental health and other things that we have touched on, but they are also about how schools are governed and the increasing requirements placed on them.
Another question that needs to be considered is: how many parents are trying to home-educate for all the wrong reasons? What proportion do we think this is? I know from listening to education officers that it is quite small, but it demands attention. Let me be clear that I understand the concerns about safeguarding and educational standards. They are real, just as they are real in schools, and they need to be dealt with proportionately. In terms of safeguarding, Peers who like data may want to know that the only figures I can find are that home-educated children add up to about 1.4% of the population of schoolchildren and they account for 1.2% of serious case reviews. As noble Lords will know, those are reviews where children are seriously harmed or die. These figures suggest that home-educated children are no more at risk than children at school and conceivably less so. My point is that home education should be seen as a risk factor only for those with a record of abuse or where there is an existing concern, but not for the generality of parents, yet the approach we see in the Bill suggests that all home-educating parents are viewed with suspicion. That is certainly what they feel.
Looking ahead, once proportionate checks are done at the beginning of a relationship between parents and the authorities, I believe the approach should be one of partnership, as the Minister said. It is strange that it is not, given that in other policy areas government is considering more partnership with parents. In health, for example, it is now becoming accepted that parents know their child better than any professional can. As the Minister knows, I am working with a group of home-educating parents together with a home education officer and my noble friend Lord Hampton to look at alternative policy ideas for the future, and I am grateful to her for facilitating access for discussions with her officials about this.
Let me turn to specific amendments. Government Amendment 120 gives authorities the power to withhold permission to educate, or to decide whether they can educate, from parents of children who have been the subject of action under Section 47 in the last five years —i.e. things that have to do with safeguarding issues. To that extent, it seems proportionate and in line with what I have just said about risk factors. However, I have one significant concern. Many adopted children will end up being caught by this, because those children may have been the subject of such proceedings earlier in life before adoption. Noble Lords will know that adoption is a one-year or two-year, rigorous process. Do we really think that local authorities should second-guess parents who have been though that process about the best education for the child that they have just been entrusted with? Are they really a source of risk? I would be enormously grateful if the Minister would exempt them. My Amendment 120A makes that specific point.
However, Amendment 121A from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to change the five-year period into a lifetime requirement and include proceedings under Section 31, where children have been taken into care, and Section 17, where children have ever been in need. I believe this is disproportionate in its impact. It will draw many people into this group. Do we really want to treat disabled children differently simply because their parents have asked voluntarily for some help, or because they were in care before adoption? I know of cases where children were taken into care at the request of the wife during proceedings against an abusive husband.
Amendment 121B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is potentially extremely dangerous for that last group of parents, who are seeking to avoid abusive ex-partners, as it will reveal their location and possibly their address. I cannot make this point strongly enough. I know women who are in this situation. The amendment says that all parents should be consulted. The Minister will also know that where such partners discover the authority or address, they may well bring allegations against their ex-partner under Section 47, causing as much damage as possible. I note in this context that deregistering a child from a school requires only one signature, not the signature of all the parents involved. This seems inconsistent.
However, Amendment 123 by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seems eminently sensible in requiring that local authorities should spell out reasons for refusing permission to deregister children in special schools. My Amendments 122 and 124 would serve similar purposes. They are about holding authorities to account for their decisions. The wording of Amendment 122 relates to local authorities judging that staying at a school is in the child’s best interests. There needs to be some appropriate mechanism for confirming or challenging this, and I propose that it should be confirmed by a court. My Amendment 124 addresses cases where parents appeal against an authority’s decision; it asks that the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers issue guidance on how they would judge an appeal. This seems to me a very straightforward ask. People will need to know how their appeal will be judged. I hope the Minister agrees. The more transparency here, the better.
I agree with the Minister that government Amendment 125, about meetings at the point of deregistration, seems generally sensible and worth taking forward as a pilot. I believe they should also be treated as exit interviews, asking why the relationship between the school and the child has broken down—if that is the case, because it may not—and making that information available to the education committee and Ofsted. Schools and authorities need to use that information to improve their services, and that is the purpose of my Amendment 125A, which I believe from my correspondence the Minister agrees with.
I turn to government Amendment 131 along with Amendment 131A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about requesting meetings in the child’s home. This is the most controversial area, and I suspect other Peers have had more correspondence about this than anything else, raising a whole range of issues about access to people’s homes. I note that this is not mandatory, although there are implicit penalties for not complying. What relationship are they trying to establish? This is problematic legally, but I am not going to dwell on that; my earlier comments on Amendment 121 by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, apply here: do the parents of adopted children have to apply?
I have two further points. First, I am not clear what this inspection is about. What criteria will be used? The home as such is not a proxy for the standard of education. Surely we need to know the criteria that are involved. The only criterion that I can possibly think of is that the child has some quiet space at home or elsewhere to study, although that raises questions about Travellers.
Lastly, even more importantly, why should the child be subject to two meetings in 15 days? This is a real issue, involving the invasion of what is, for many of them, their safe space. This is very problematic for many children. We need only think of adopted children, many of whom are terrified by any officials and live in a constant fear of being rejected or taken away again. This amendment requires more debate and more answers. I certainly feel it is important that the child should be at one or other of the two meetings that are proposed in the first 15 days, but two meetings with officials in 15 days seems excessive.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 121A, relating to local authority consent for the withdrawal of certain children from school, and to Amendment 131A, empowering local authorities to make home visits to children who have ever been subject to a care order or on a child protection plan. Both amendments have been proposed by my noble friend Lady Barran and are supported by other noble Lords on other Benches.
Broadly, I have welcomed the provisions in the Bill strengthening protections for children not in school or removed from schools, and I am grateful to the Government for the amendments that they have tabled since Committee, but I do not believe that is enough. We need to recognise more clearly that, in some circumstances, the declared intention to home-educate can in itself be a signal that some risk or harm has resurfaced.
No safeguarding system can ever be entirely comprehensive and infallible, and indeed safeguarding work should always be proportionate, but schools are an important part of that system, especially for children at higher risk. Social work always involves a difficult balance. A care order is a drastic intervention. Maintaining a child protection plan is expensive and intrusive into family life. We do not keep children in care or on protection plans by default, and it is normal for the level of intervention to be adjusted in line with circumstances. So, while a child is of school age, schools provide an important continuing residual line of sight to the child and are responsible for alerting local authorities if they believe that a child’s circumstances have deteriorated.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am happy to have added my name to Amendments 121A and 131A by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. I am grateful to officials from the Department for Education who had a meeting with us to discuss these amendments and the reasoning behind them.
The reasoning behind those amendments is really simple. The Sara Sharif incident happened despite multiple reviews looking into not dissimilar cases, in some cases over previous decades. In this case, I do feel that almost an extreme preventive approach is required to make sure that we do not have a repetition. The point was made by the officials that there have been significant improvements in the quality of children’s services in most of the country and about two-thirds are now in a reasonable shape, but that raises the question: what about the other third?
If there is another case, God forbid, like Sara Sharif —and history, for I am a historian by background, teaches us that that probably will happen—the opprobrium that will be heaped upon whichever unfortunate Ministers and officials happen to be in office at the time will be considerable and, in our view, is avoidable. We should mitigate that risk by assuming that we have to legislate for the one-third of children’s services that are not in good shape, because that is almost certainly where the accidents will happen. One of the key findings of the Sara Sharif review was that there have been systemic weaknesses again and again, despite all the inquiries and the well-intentioned actions that followed them. This is important enough that we feel we have to prepare and assume that the worst might happen and do everything in our power to prevent it.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I added my name to Amendments 121A and 131A. There is a real problem of mistrust with elective home education against traditional education. I acknowledge my noble friend Lord Crisp, and am delighted to be on his working party to try to do something about it.
I was in the same meeting as the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and my noble friend Lord Russell where we talked to the DfE. It was rather wonderful, because instead of talking about technicalities, one of the people there started talking about cricket, which I am much happier with than Section 31s and things. He accused us of setting the field for a bad ball—so we were being extremes. Obviously, I came back with no setting the field for a bad ball but putting some sweepers out as well just in case. The whole point of legislation is to avoid the disasters, the out of the ordinary, the Sara Sharifs. We were also told that a possible future home visit might deter parents from seeking help with a Section 31. Again, I cannot see why. These amendments are incredibly sensible and thoughtful, and their spirit would help those avoidable disasters, which, tragically, may well happen.
Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)
My Lords, I have also added my name to Amendment 121A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. This is a very important set of amendments. I welcome the fact that many of them are about strengthening safeguarding. That is really important.
I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, because he had, as ever, some very important points to make. I do not agree with everything he said, but I agree that the time is ripe have a broader debate about a wider set of issues around the whole issue of home education that go outside the scope of this Bill. I hope it will be possible to do that. I also agreed with the noble Lord about the need for any safeguarding action to be proportionate, but it is my view that the targeting of action—as it is in Amendment 121A, so that
“local authorities must consent to the withdrawal of a child from school”
if they are involved in either child protection plans or are a child in need as classified under Section 17 of that Act—is proportionate in trying to provide additional support for vulnerable children and making sure that they do not fall through the cracks.
We have heard too many times, over the years, these heartbreaking cases of children who have fallen through the cracks—the most recent one, of course, was the harrowing and terrible case of Sara Sharif—because of a lack of visibility. This amendment would ensure that greater visibility is given to these children, which is why I added my name to it. I know people have different views on this, but that is my reason for believing that it is a proportionate amendment.
Lord Meston (CB)
My Lords, I support Clause 31 and government Amendment 120. I also support Amendment 121A, which would extend the scope of what Clause 31 seeks to achieve, which is to prevent concealment of the real reasons for attempts to withdraw children from school, in particular by parents or a parent with something to hide. The clause provides that the consent of the local authority is required if there is a Section 47 inquiry under way or there has been such an inquiry. Amendment 121A would extend the scope of the need for the local authority’s consent, which I support. However, if we are talking about cracks, I suggest that it could go further. The need for consent should also be triggered if the family court, in private law proceedings, has directed a report and investigation under Section 37 of the Children Act or has directed a local authority to report under Section 7. Experience shows, and certainly my experience is, that it is often in private law proceedings that alarm bells first ring. That is the first opportunity to investigate what really might be happening in the family home.
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I support my noble friend’s sensible proposals in Amendment 121A—they obviously have cross-party support. The Bill proposes a power for local authorities to withhold consent to a child being removed from school in certain circumstances and my noble friend’s amendment would strengthen that principle by giving a local authority the power to refuse consent if a child has ever been subject to a child protection plan or if they are currently defined as a Section 17 child in need because of abuse or neglect.
It is important to remember that although education in this country is compulsory, schooling is not. For some parents this is a very important principle, which is why I support other amendments supported by my noble friend to require a local authority to give its reasons for withholding consent and, importantly, to simplify the huge amount of information a parent choosing to educate their child at home currently has to provide.
My noble friend Lord Lucas, who is in his place, asked an apposite question in Committee:
“What is the Government’s purpose in seeking to be … so intrusive and punitive towards elective home education”—[Official Report, 20/5/25; col. 173.]
in this Bill? The vast majority of parents do not choose home schooling for their children, but for those who do, it is an important freedom. I say to the Minister that I am flagging up a possible situation beyond this Bill. Although parents may choose home schooling, for some it is becoming not a principle but a necessity. I am looking at the parents of children with special needs who are forced into home schooling because the local authority cannot afford to provide for their child, or offers unacceptable alternatives, such as return journeys of 90 miles to a school every day or private tutoring in a public place. Of course this is outside the scope of the Bill, but it is a warning note because we may find that there then is established another category of home schooling for parents who have been offered an unacceptable solution to their problem.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I will be very brief. It is an old, apparently African, adage that it takes a village to raise a child, but it is no less true for that. What that captures in a few words is that raising a child is a balance: a partnership between the parents on the one hand and the wider community on the other. I think that is what we are trying to get at in this group of amendments: what are the appropriate powers for the state to have and what should be simply left to parents?
It is a long-standing principle in this country that parents have the right to home-educate their children, but where that becomes a proxy for hiding the children from the state and putting them in a place where they are potentially at risk and at danger then clearly concerns must be raised. Having listened carefully to this debate, I will, if they are pressed to Divisions, support the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, in Amendment 121A and maybe later in Amendment 131A. They are probably as nuanced as we are going to get in a complex situation where we can all find bad balls for which we should not be setting the field.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 164B, 164C, 167A, 170A, 170B, 175ZD and 175ZE in my name. All these amendments are rooted in one concern, and we have had a lot of debate already that touches on this: that it is not whether the state may act, but how it does so. It is not whether safeguarding matters, because it does, but whether the systems we design can tell the difference between care and control, and between help and coercion.
I welcome those of the Government’s amendments that strengthen scrutiny, including by using the affirmative procedure. That kind of restraint does not weaken authority; it makes it legitimate. Where I differ is where further processes, or compulsory steps, are placed on parents simply to complete a sequence. Support should be available, but it should not become mandatory and it should not become a gateway to enforcement.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, new Section 434A(6)(b)(i) asks the local authority to consider
“that it would be in the child’s best interests to receive education by regular attendance at school”.
But no child attends school: they attend a school. They might attend the school where the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, works—fine—or they might go to the school depicted in episode 2 of “Adolescence”. That would have me hoicking my child out in a millisecond, and there are a lot of schools like that.
My noble friend’s Amendment 175ZD is therefore an important potential addition to the Bill. There should not be a presumption that any school is better than any home education, but that is where we are heading with this bit of the Bill. We are putting a duty on local authorities to judge and giving them the presumption that the child should be put into school. It is like buying IBM when I was young: it is the safe choice. If local authorities allow someone to be home educated, they are taking all the risks on themselves, but if they chuck the child into school, any school, there are no risks. So all the emphasis on how a local authority officer should behave is focused on pushing a child into school, whatever the circumstances.
That is a deep fault in the Bill, and Amendment 122 from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is the right solution to it. There should be some court oversight of the judgment of local authorities, otherwise there is a complete imbalance. We know how local authorities behave; they drive into the easy answers because that is life—I only have 70 years’ experience of it. Going for the safe answer is the natural, human thing to do, and you are asking a huge amount of a local authority to expect it to stand up against that. We must produce a countervailing force somewhere in the Bill. I would choose Amendment 122 from the amendments on offer, and I hope that the Government will see the wisdom of moving in that direction.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we have come a long way on the issue of home education and safeguarding. I want to start by thanking the Minister for her comments at the beginning of this group. I was also taken with the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, who reminded us that education is compulsory, but schooling is not. We want all our learning and education, whether it is in school or at home, to be the best that can be provided. We want our schools to be safe and we want children who are home educated to be safe.
I remind the House of where we currently stand. Any parent can take their child out of school just like that: no notification or form-filling, they just take their child out. They take them to their home and apparently, hopefully, maybe or definitely home educate them—we do not know. There are some parents who are absolutely determined that their children get the best home education that they can give them. However, we also have situations at the other extreme, where, for example, unregistered fundamentalist religious schools have been closed down. They home educate children in small groups, because they are allowed to, and nobody knows what is going on in those schools. That cannot be and is not right.
You can have a home educator who brings people in to enthuse and inspire; you can have home educators who link up with other home educators and organise summer camps or particular field trips. That is wonderful. However, at the other end, you can have a home education system where an individual is brought in to teach the children who might, for example, be a paedophile, and we would never know, because there are no safeguarding requirements. That is not the way that our education system should work. Our children, whether they are at home or in school, should be safeguarded and properly taught. They should learn and be inspired, enthused et cetera.
I am of conscious of three amendments that are really important. I like the idea—although that is the wrong word—of Amendment 125 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. I want to see us move more and more to where home educators regard local authorities not as interferers but as people who can support and work with them. One of the things that we need to understand is why parents want to home educate, and, if they choose to go down that route, how we can support and help them. A pilot scheme, where we have a conversation with parents before they go down the route of home education, is not interfering, bullying or suggesting that they do not do it, but listening to the concerns.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I shall start, where the noble Lord, Lord Storey, finished in recognising the work of Lord Soley, who devoted many years to this issue. I hope somewhere, in his retirement, he is aware of what is happening here.
As we have discussed previously, there are at least three groups of families who educate their children at home: those who do so for philosophical reasons, where they make a positive choice; those who feel their children are struggling at school—many of whom, as we heard from my noble friend Lady Shephard, have special needs—and may not have chosen home education but believe it is in their best interests; and those whose children are faced with exclusion from school or other issues, where we are right to have concerns about their safety. The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, whom I genuinely have huge respect for—I am grateful for the collaborative way he has worked on this Bill across the House—talked about serious case reviews, but two-thirds of serious case reviews are of children of preschool age, so we are not comparing apples with apples.
The Government have introduced some very serious, albeit belated, and positive amendments, partly in response to the recommendations from the review of the death of Sara Sharif. Again, like the noble Lord, Lord Storey, we welcome government Amendments 125 and 131 in particular, which would pilot holding a meeting with parents before removing a child from school and giving the option of a visit within 15 days of a child starting home education. But in principle, we support almost all the government amendments in this group.
However, government Amendments 120 and 131 leave material gaps, which I believe we have a duty to close. I was very fortunate to meet recently the authors of the Sara Sharif serious case review, Russell Wate and Jane Wonnacott, in their capacity as independent experts in this area. My revised amendments to Clauses 31 and 32 stem largely from that conversation and might have made a difference in her case but also in many others. The national Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel report looked at the cases of 41 home-educated children, six of whom died and 35 of whom suffered serious harm. Of this group, half had never been to school and just over half had no agency involvement at the time. So, not all these children were visible.
We need to be able to talk about this group of children without in any way casting aspersions on the good intentions, commitment and efforts of parents who are bringing up their children by educating them at home who are not at risk. But we do need to learn lessons from these reviews. That is why we write them. And we have to have a proportionate approach to the risk those children face.
I am grateful to the other noble Lords who have signed my Amendment 121A, but I also point out to the House that it has the support of the Children’s Commissioner, Dame Rachel de Souza. Amendment 121A would tighten up the conditions that will give the local authority the ability to withhold consent for a child to be electively home-educated; in contrast, as we heard, the government amendment would be limited to a child who had been on a child protection register within the last five years. My amendment would include children who have ever been subject to care proceedings, whether or not they resulted in a care order.
As my noble friend Lady Spielman said—or perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Meston, or both—care proceedings are a serious move on the part of the state. In Sara’s case, two care orders were applied for in her short life; neither was successful. Amendment 121A would also include children who have ever been subject to child protection inquiries or placed on the child protection register. Again, in Sara’s case, she was only on a child protection plan at birth, so the Government’s amendment would have made no difference in her case.
Perhaps most importantly, the government amendments currently include children who are defined as a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act. The Government have already included within Section 17 those children who are in a special school because of their special educational needs and disabilities, but they have expressly excluded children who under Section 17 are a child in need because of abuse or neglect. The department’s own data recently showed there are almost 30,000 children categorised as children in need who are suffering child sexual abuse and a further 12,000 who are sexually exploited. So, the bar for what is a child in need has moved up and up with the pressures that we have seen on the child protection system, and I really hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will address that point, because it makes me anxious, with my experience in child protection. These children are under much less scrutiny than the child who is on a plan. They are the more vulnerable children, and I think they need to be included in this group.
When I met with officials, they argued that the Government’s reforms would mean that all those children who are sexually exploited or sexually abused would now be on a child protection plan, but I would rather err on the side of caution and make sure that we capture them in this.
I entirely accept the point from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, regarding adoption; that was an oversight in the drafting of my amendment. But let us be clear: the consequence is that a child has to go to school; the consequence is not endless involvement of a local authority in a family’s life. The child goes to school—something which the vast majority of children in this country do.
My Amendment 131A has perhaps been slightly misunderstood. It
“would require the local authority to conduct a home visit where a child has ever been subject to care proceedings, named in a child protection plan”—
not, as was suggested, if there have been investigations that might be malicious—
“or is currently classified as a child in need”.
The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, is right. For some children, home is a safe space, but for too many children, home is the exact opposite, and we need to walk over the threshold on behalf of those children.
I accept there have been concerns about my Amendment 121B, and I would not want to do anything that would put victims of domestic abuse at further risk. I hope the Government can come back with something that is workable there.
Anyone who has worked in child protection will know that the line between the child who dies or is seriously harmed and the child who survives is a very, very fine line; it might come down to the school or the neighbours or the bus driver or somebody noticing something and acting. So, what my amendments aim to do is to cast the net in a proportionate way that would drive professional curiosity on the part of local authority staff but allow us to identify those children who are at risk of suffering neglect or abuse if they are taken out of school and become invisible. I hope the Minister will be able to address those points.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will focus on the detail of the amendments in this group, rather than on some of the broader arguments made by noble Lords. Both on Second Reading and in Committee, we have talked about home education issues at considerable length.
Lord Crisp (CB)
Is the Minister saying that when a local authority has just granted authority to parents to take responsibility for life for what are difficult children with trauma in their background, fairly soon afterwards you are going to second-guess them about how they should do education? The Minister may say that it should be done softly, but essentially that is what she is saying—that she is going to make them jump through yet another hoop.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
No, that is not what I am saying. I am saying that these are children who, almost by definition, will have gone through difficult and traumatic circumstances. Therefore, the opportunity within that five-year period to have the process for ensuring that they would not be better served by staying at school would serve those children well. I was about to say that, of course, those parents will already be well known to the local authority, and we would expect those checks to be relatively quick because the relevant information and relationship with the parents is already built.
On Amendment 121A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, I thank the noble Baroness as well as the noble Lord, Lord Russell, and others for their constructive engagement last week. They have referenced the meeting they had with my officials on the detail of their amendment; of course, it was also with Steve Crocker, the non-executive board member for the department and former president of the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, and the DCS in Hampshire. The amendment would seek to extend the requirement to get permission to withdraw a child from school to home-educate them to a much broader group of children, including all children who are or who have ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry or child protection plan; those who are or have ever been the subject of proceedings relating to supervision or care orders; and those who are currently receiving support and services as a child in need under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
We tabled our amendment to extend the requirement to children who have recently been discharged from child protection plans because we felt that five years was a reasonable period in which to expect a family to show sustainable change. Extending the timeframe to consider all children previously subject to a child protection inquiry or plan, and including those who have been subject to proceedings or are currently receiving support from children’s social care, risks discouraging families from agreeing to accept support and services early or may lead to them withdrawing from this support, if consent from the local authority is required to home-educate.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester called this amendment a nuanced approach. Well, it is not a nuanced approach because it aims to use this specific consent provision to solve much wider issues within the Bill and goes far beyond, in terms of the breadth of children it would encompass, those included by the Government’s amendment. It is exactly the opposite of what we want to achieve through the Families First Partnership programme, whereby we want to broaden the group that come forward for help at the earliest possible opportunity.
Noble Lords have rightly expressed their concern about the children who fall through the cracks in the system, and that is why we are fixing the system that safeguards and protects children and investing £2.4 billion in rolling out the Families First Partnership programme. It is why we are developing multi-agency child protection teams in every local area and legislating for better information sharing and a stronger role for education and childcare settings in local safeguarding arrangements. These measures are designed to identify and support more quickly children who need help and protection.
The noble Lord, Lord Storey, touched on the fact that this amendment would capture every parent whose child has ever been the subject of a child protection inquiry who wishes to remove that child from school. Let us not forget that a Section 47 inquiry is a significant event for a family—an intrusion into family life without consent. I know we all agree that this is the right thing to protect children from harm where it is needed, but last year alone just under 200,000 children aged between five and 15 were the subject of an inquiry. While I recognise that only a small number of these parents will want to home-educate, it would be both a significant undertaking for a local authority and a significant additional intrusion for those parents where concerns were not substantiated and no further action was taken.
On broadening the consent measure to include children where supervision or care proceedings are or have been initiated, once again it is a significant undertaking for the local authority to seek court intervention in family life. In these circumstances, the local authority should and will be assessing the safety and well-being of the children. Most of these children will have been on child protection plans before proceedings are initiated, so they will already be within the consent measure. Where proceedings are historic and there are still safeguarding concerns, these children should be being picked up through existing safeguarding mechanisms such as those already captured by the existing consent requirements. The question we need to ask ourselves is whether this is a proportionate approach. I understand the concern to mitigate risk at every possible occasion, but we also need to recognise that this is not the appropriate tool to use, given that this Bill is about improving the whole of the system much more radically.
Amendment 131A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would require local authorities to visit the child’s home environment for certain groups of children. Amendment 131 already provides sufficient safeguards by allowing local authorities to consider the child’s home and other education settings and to request a visit to meet the child. Local authorities should already be undertaking home visits as part of their regular oversight of children subject to child protection inquiries or plans, children on child in need plans, and those involved in care or supervision proceedings. The statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, is very clear. It is part of their duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in their area; this would include visiting children who need help, support or protection, and we will also clarify in statutory guidance on the registers that these children should be prioritised for visits at the point of registration.
Amendment 121B, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to ensure that the views of all parents of the child are considered as part of the local authority’s decision to grant permission for a child to be removed from school for home education. In most cases, we would expect local authorities to seek the views of all parents when they are considering whether to grant consent. However, there will be situations where doing so would be inappropriate. I think we can imagine what some of those might be. Of course, requiring the local authority to consult all of those with parental responsibility could delay a consent decision in circumstances where, for example, estranged parents are hard to reach. We will make this clear in statutory guidance.
Amendment 122, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, would require a court to confirm the local authority’s assessment that it is in the child’s best interest to receive education by regular attendance at school. We believe that local authorities will be well placed to make these decisions, as they will be aware of the child’s circumstances and can draw on multi-agency expertise, as well as parental views, in their decision-making. Introducing a requirement for court confirmation would add unnecessary delays.
Amendment 123, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, seeks to require a local authority to provide a statement of reasons if it refuses to grant permission for a child at a special school to be home-educated. I wholly agree that it is right for reasons to be provided, and we intend to make this clear in statutory guidance, which we will consult on. In that consultation, we will also consider to what extent a local authority’s reasons for a decision should include the costs and benefits to the child of permission being granted or refused.
Amendment 124, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to ensure that the process by which parents can appeal a consent decision made by a local authority is transparent and fair. The first proposed new subsection in this amendment makes many sensible suggestions but I do not think it is necessary to place this level of detail in the Bill. I wrote to noble Lords earlier this month outlining the department’s intention to provide more in-depth guidance on the appeals process, which will include target timelines and examples of the type of evidence that may be submitted. I am afraid that I do not agree with the second proposed new subsection. The tribunal process can be lengthy and these types of cases do not fall within the current remit of the Local Government Ombudsman. The appeals process proposed in the Bill is uncomplicated, objective and will be the most efficient route for parents to get a final decision.
Amendment 125A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, seeks to amend the provisions of government Amendment 125 to establish a pilot scheme of mandatory meetings. I am grateful to the noble Lord for the intention that lies behind his amendment. The Government’s amendment places a clear requirement on local authorities to record the outcome of these meetings. Should this provision be accepted, statutory guidance will make explicit that the record must include any concerns that parents express about schools, as well as actions taken by the authority in response. As part of the pilot, we intend to gather this information so that we can understand how it is being used and how it might drive improvements across the system—this is a call made by other noble Lords as well—so we can get a better understanding of why, as was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Shephard, parents are withdrawing their children from school.
Amendments 164B, 164C and 167A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to give discretion or place limitations on when local authorities may issue preliminary notices or school attendance orders. The department agrees that it is important that local authorities work to foster positive relations with home-educating families, which is why the Bill introduces a support duty. We have tabled an amendment to require local authorities to offer home-educating parents a biannual forum to discuss any concerns or issues. However, if a child is in potentially unsuitable education or education that is not in their best interest, action must be taken without delay.
Amendments 170A and 170B, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to place limitations on when a local authority can request a home visit when considering whether a school attendance order should be served. By this stage of the school attendance order process, a local authority will already have used informal inquiries and a preliminary notice to the parent to obtain information about the child’s education. A parent will therefore have had several opportunities to satisfy the local authority that their child is in receipt of a suitable education. Requiring a local authority to obtain a court order to conduct a visit would not be an appropriate use of the court’s time and could prolong the time a child spends receiving an unsuitable education. We will use statutory guidance to help local authorities sensitively conduct these visits and we are developing a training package for local authorities focusing on their new duties.
Amendment 175ZD, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, is unnecessary because Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 is clear that education otherwise than at school is a legitimate choice for parents—incidentally, a point that has been made by the Government throughout the whole of this debate and consideration of the Bill.
Amendment 175ZE, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue a code of conduct in respect of attendance. There is already statutory guidance that sets out in detail the roles and responsibilities for all the institutions and persons listed in this amendment in relation to improving school attendance. The department published the Working Together to Improve School Attendance guidance in 2022, following full public consultation, and it was updated less than 18 months ago in August 2024.
This has been a wide-ranging group of amendments, but I hope that I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns. I commend the government amendments, particularly government Amendment 120.
Lord Hampton (CB)
Before the noble Baroness sits down, I am slightly disappointed that she did not comment on something that I would like to hear from her. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, for whom I have enormous admiration—particularly as he was very kind about Mossbourne just now—said that there are plenty of schools like the one in episode two of “Adolescence”. It really bugs me that, although “Adolescence” is an extraordinary piece of drama, it is now being taken as a documentary. It is a dystopian view of schools. Will the Minister assure the House that there are not plenty of schools like in episode two of “Adolescence”?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am more than happy to do that. The point we have raised consistently throughout this is that it is right that parents have the ability to home-educate their children, if that is what they choose to do, but the idea that they are forced to do that because the vast majority of our schools are bad is simply wrong. The vast majority of our schools do a very good job for children. That is why the vast majority of children are educated within them and benefit from that.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Young of Cookham) (Con)
The debate is in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. Does he wish to respond?
Lord Crisp (CB)
Sorry, my Lords, I did not realised that I have the chance to respond. I feel somewhat outnumbered on a number of the things that I said. I think there is a real need to have a proper look at policy about how all this fits together. I think we are going to come across quite a lot of unease and protest, in various ways, around the country as a result of some of these measures being brought in, perhaps at rather a late moment. Having said all that, I am very happy to work with others to try to find some solutions and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barran
“(c) conducting or has ever initiated proceedings under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 (care and supervision),(d) providing services to the child or their family under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (provision of services for children in need, their families, and others),or has ever conducted enquiries or has ever taken action under section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority’s duty to investigate).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure local authorities must consent to the withdrawal of a child from school if there are currently, or have ever been, enquiries, proceedings or action initiated in relation to the child under section 31 or 47 of the Children Act 1989 or the child is currently classified as a child in need under section 17 of that Act.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“434B Mandatory local authority meetings prior to withdrawal of child from school(1) The appropriate national authority must, by regulations made before the end of the relevant period, make a scheme (“a pilot scheme”) to provide—(a) that the parent of a child must attend and participate in a meeting with the local authority responsible for the child if the parent intends—(i) that the child should cease to attend the school at which the child is a registered pupil, and(ii) to withdraw the child from school for the purpose of causing the child to receive education otherwise than at a school,(b) that the local authority must ensure that the following matters are discussed with the parent during the meeting—(i) the duty of parents under section 7 and how the parent plans to meet this duty;(ii) the duties of the local authority, including the support duty under section 436G;(iii) the parent’s reasons for considering that the child should receive education otherwise than at school;(iv) any support needs that the child may have and how those needs could be met;(v) the safeguarding and welfare of the child;(vi) anything else relevant to the decision to withdraw the child from school,(c) that the child must attend the meeting unless exceptional circumstances apply,(d) that a representative of the school at which the child is a registered pupil must attend the meeting if the parent consents to the representative’s attendance,(e) that the proprietor of a school must not allow the deletion from the school’s register of the name of the child unless the proprietor receives notice from the local authority that the meeting has taken place in respect of the child, and(f) that the local authority must record the outcome of the meeting or whether the meeting was refused.(2) The “relevant period” is the period of two years beginning with the day on which section 31 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force.(3) The regulations must also specify—(a) the local authorities in respect of which the pilot scheme will operate, and(b) the period for which the scheme has effect.(4) The number of local authorities specified under subsection (3)(a) must not exceed 30 per cent of all local authorities in England or 30 per cent of all local authorities in Wales as the case may be.(5) The period specified under subsection (3)(b) must not be less than two years and must not exceed five years.(6) The regulations may provide for exemptions from the pilot scheme in respect of descriptions of children as specified in the regulations. (7) The regulations may make provision for, or in connection with, any arrangements that the appropriate national authority considers are required to ensure that the pilot scheme can operate.(8) The provision that may be made by virtue of subsection (7) includes—(a) provision modifying or amending the pilot scheme for the purpose of ensuring that the scheme can operate in relation to children falling within section 434A;(b) provision modifying or amending section 434A for the purpose of ensuring that the pilot scheme can operate in relation to children falling within that section.(9) Subject to subsection (10), the appropriate national authority may by regulations—(a) make provision to end the pilot scheme;(b) provide that the provisions mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1) have effect, after the expiry of the pilot scheme, in relation to all local authorities, subject to any exemptions for descriptions of children as specified in the regulations;(c) amend section 434A for the purpose of ensuring that the grant of local authority consent to withdraw a child from school under that section is conditional on the parent of that child attending and participating in a meeting with the local authority responsible for the child, as described in paragraphs (a) to (f) of subsection (1), subject to any exemptions for descriptions of children as specified in the regulations;(d) make provision for, or in connection with, any arrangements that the appropriate national authority considers are required to ensure that any provision made under paragraphs (a) to (c) can operate.(10) Regulations under subsection (9) may be made only after the pilot scheme has operated for a period of no less than 2 years.(11) Before making any regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must consult such persons as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.(12) In this section “appropriate national authority” means—(a) in relation to England, the Secretary of State;(b) in relation to Wales, the Welsh Ministers.(13) If a draft of a statutory instrument containing regulations made by the Secretary of State under this section would, apart from this subsection, be treated for the purposes of the standing orders of either House of Parliament as a hybrid instrument, it is to proceed in that House as if it were not such an instrument.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow regulations to make pilot schemes requiring parents who wish to withdraw their children from school to attend mandatory meetings with the local authority. Regulations may also extend the provisions to all local authorities, following the end of the pilot scheme and a consultation.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(2) In section 569(2A) of the Education Act 1996, after “section” insert “434B”.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendment of clause 31, page 57, line 2 and will ensure that regulations made under the provision inserted by that amendment will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Baroness Benjamin
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendments 127, 129 and 130 in my name, which are supported by the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson; I thank him for his support, as always.
These amendments are on behalf of young performers in the fast-paced and flourishing entertainment industry. I congratulate all of the young people involved in films nominated for the BAFTA awards. I have worked closely with Spotlight, experts on international child performance licensing, and child licence co-ordinators, all of whom have a wealth of experience in dealing with child performers and the issues that surround them and their well-being; I thank them all for their hard work and commitment.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
I have added my name in support of Amendments 127 and 129 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and outlined so eloquently by her just now. I also signed her amendments on a similar topic during earlier stages of the Bill, and I commend her for pursuing this important topic throughout its passage. I was unable to be here for the debates we had on this issue in Committee but followed the detailed exchanges that the noble Baroness had with the Minister then. I know that they have been talking fruitfully outside the Chamber as well, which I was glad to hear.
Reading those earlier exchanges, however, I must say that I was struck by how thick the jungle of regulation has become in this area, and how hard it is as a consequence for parents and teachers of young people who are offered these important and beneficial experiences to help take up what can be truly life-changing opportunities for them. In a simpler era, I was somebody who benefited from such an opportunity. At the age of 13, I played a French ghost called Guillaume in a children’s television drama, broadcast on Halloween 1996. That opportunity came about by chance; the writer of the show had worked with some of the teachers at my state comprehensive. I think my casting had less to do with my acting prowess and more the fact I could do a passable French accent and bore a striking similarity to the chap who had been cast as the character who was to be my twin brother.
It was an unforgettable and formative experience. We went to film it in a ruined chateau in Dijon, and I was paid the princely sum of £400, which will always be the most pleasing payslip I have ever received. Crucially, I was given the opportunity on the condition that I carried on my work, and my dad had to come with me to make sure that I did the homework and schoolwork that I missed while we were away filming.
Looking at the forms and regulations that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has highlighted, and the even more forbidding system that could be brought about by the Bill as currently drafted, I wonder whether schools and families like mine would be able to seize the same opportunities as easily as I was able to 30 years ago. I therefore very much support the noble Baroness’s crusade to make this as simple as possible, including her call for a review of the 2014 regulations. When they were brought in during the coalition Government, there was a commitment then to look at them after 10 years. That time has now elapsed— I hope the Government will look at it.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, has said, what we have does not recognise the complexity of the creative industries and the sectors. This is a place where filming schedules can change at last minute, where young actors’ opportunities often overlap, and certainly where decisions need to be taken at a faster pace than the capacity of many local authorities to be able to. There is also a very important issue of equity and social mobility that lies behind this. The harder we make it for children from ordinary backgrounds to take up opportunities such as this, and if we give that impression by calling them an unauthorised absence or sending the message that this might adversely affect a school’s Ofsted ratings, then the fewer children from state schools we are going to see take up opportunities like this.
While the gap has been closing a bit in recent years, the arts and creative industries are sectors in which children from public and private schools seem to have a head start. A report by the Sutton Trust and the Creative Industries Policy and Evidence Centre last November showed that BAFTA-nominated actors are still five times more likely to have attended a fee-paying school than the population as a whole. We are already missing out on countless other Ncuti Gatwas and Jodie Comers, to name just two talented actors from state schools who have managed to beat the odds, and we should be seeking to narrow that gap, not widen it. I hope that the Minister will support these sensible amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, when she comes to respond, and that she will also take the opportunity to send the message from the Dispatch Box that taking up opportunities such as this is very worth while for children of all backgrounds.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 148C and the other amendments in my name in this group: Amendments 157A, 161B, 161C, 164A, 175ZF and 254. Together, they address the foundations of Clause 32 and the proposed register of children not in school.
I begin by recognising where the Government have listened and where Ministers have accepted the need for stronger parliamentary scrutiny, clearer procedures and a narrowing of discretion through the affirmative process and other means. This deserves acknowledgement. Restraint is not a weakness in law; it is what makes power credible.
I want to address the deeper questions raised by Amendments 164A, 175ZF and 254. These are not separate concerns; they express a single constitutional proposition. We heard just now about the restrictions that many families in the creative industries will face, and I would extend that to all families, as many families have complex fast-changing lives. In home education, you have a lot of online activity. I do not think that there is necessarily a huge world of difference. I accept that children in acting have a particular situation, but those who are in home education circumstances also have quite complex schedules. Many of the same arguments that were made in relation to that group apply to many families that are going to be swept in by the Bill.
A universal and persistent register of lawful families, together with the data infrastructure that flows from it, is not a proportional response to safeguarding risk. Proportionality lies at the very core of the balance between legitimate state regulatory power and civil and convention liberties. Safeguarding in this country has always been based on thresholds, reasonable cause, identifiable risk and particular children. Clause 32 alters that logic: oversight becomes the default, while risk is inferred from how families respond to that oversight. This is a significant change in the relationship between families and the state. Once a universal system is built, it rarely remains narrow: secondary uses accumulate, data sharing expands and retention grows. Each future tragedy becomes an argument for more routine intervention.
None of this requires malice; it flows naturally from administrative logic and institutional risk aversion. The House should therefore ask a simple practical question: what problem does a universal register solve that cannot already be addressed through existing powers? The answer is none. Local authorities already have extensive safeguarding tools. They can make inquiries, assess needs, convene multi-agency responses and go to court. None of these powers requires a population-level database of lawful families. If the concern is that some children fall through the cracks, that is serious, but it does not logically entail universal monitoring. The proper response is to examine how targeted systems fail, as in the tragic case of Sara Sharif, and to strengthen the response under current rules, not construct permanent identification spying for hundreds of thousands of children, most of whom are not at risk and many of whom are educated outside school precisely because they are vulnerable. These amendments therefore ask the House to pause before constructing an infrastructure that normalises permanent oversight of lawful difference. They do not deny safeguarding; they challenge inevitability.
However, if the House is not persuaded to remove the register entirely, the minimum duty upon us is to bind it with strong statutory safeguards. This brings me to the second tier of amendments in this group: those concerned with review, transparency, and redress. My Amendments 148C and 161B would introduce time limits, rolling review, and active parliamentary reauthorisation. These are not wrecking devices but constitutional hygiene. Government is good at building systems but much less good at dismantling them. Review mechanisms force Parliament to look again with evidence in hand. They create a lawful route for correction, refinement, and, if necessary, reversal without waiting for scandal or litigation, which home education leaders and legal advisers suggest to me will spiral should such systems in their current form be taken forward.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I got around to reading all these amendments only today, and I was quite impressed. I felt that in some ways this is your Lordships’ House at its best, because this is all from personal experience. People are talking about something they know very intimately and can therefore put the necessary emphasis where it matters: the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson—le petit Guillaume—and the noble, Lord Wei, with his home schooling.
I feel that we have completely failed children who are home educated; we have not understood how important that aspect of education is for many children. At the moment, there are excessive data powers, legal ambiguity and the erosion of long-standing parental rights. It is just so much worse than it could be, and I feel very sad about that. I have three grandchildren who were home educated; two are now studying at Cambridge and the other is making films, so their home education did not hold them back. I am concerned about the digital ID as there are no safeguards on sharing that information. There are unchecked powers for the local authorities, and there was no meaningful consultation or risk assessment. Therefore, home-educated children are subject to a higher level of scrutiny and data extraction, and it just seems that we are going to a place where a lot of children are going to be very disadvantaged, because being taught at home is not an option for them.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I very much support my noble friend’s Amendment 157A. One of the fundamental things that can come out of this register is proper information for Parliament on what is happening in home education, and I very much hope that we will receive that.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin. I hope I will be able to see the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, on YouTube. Was it a goose, did he say?
Our creative industries are hugely important to this country—we are world leaders—and children and young people play a huge part in their success. One of my ex-pupils, Josh Bolt, was a regular on “Last Tango in Halifax” and, sadly, “Benidorm”; I know that the schooling side worked for Josh.
We are so lucky to have in this House people who have real expertise in particular areas. Obviously, the noble Baroness brings it in relation to the performing arts sector, so we have to listen with great care to what she says. During the coalition, we promised a review— I think PACT was involved—and that decision in 2014 needs to be looked at again. If young people are acting or performing, we need to ensure that they are safeguarded and that their education is there. We also need to ensure that the system does not prohibit them making a valuable contribution, not least to their own career development. I hope the Minister will say some warm and wise words on those amendments.
Baroness Barran (Con)
The Minister always says warm and wise words—well, some of the time.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Oh, well, all the time, then.
I will keep my remarks very brief. The noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, and my noble friend Lord Parkinson made a convincing case that children involved in performances should get special consideration in this area. I am not sure whether this is something I have to declare on the register, but my husband appeared in a drinking chocolate advert. I am ashamed to say that I just messaged him and, rather like my noble friend Lord Parkinson, he remembers exactly how much he was paid: £17 a day for two days and £200 for repeat broadcasts. My noble friend made the point very vividly: this means a huge amount to the children involved.
On the amendments tabled my noble friend Lord Wei, he will not be surprised to hear me say that the principles underpinning a register were in the previous Government’s Schools Bill and in the current Government’s manifesto, and we should respect that. Having said that, his Amendment 157A, even if it does not need formally to be in legislation, would be a very constructive way forward. I look forward to the Minister’s remarks.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
I feel that this group is becoming something of a confessional. It is very interesting to hear noble Lords’ backgrounds. The thing I love about this House is that noble Lords can bring their personal experiences, which makes the debate so rich. I expected it from the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, but it is very interesting to have other experiences coming into the Chamber.
This is a very important group of amendments about making sure that the registration system works, that it captures the appropriate children and that it does not in any way undermine young people’s ambitions. That is a very good point.
Amendments 127 and 129, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, would exclude all child performers from inclusion in the children not in school registers. I thank the noble Baroness for her productive engagement with the department and my noble friend the Minister on these issues that she obviously cares very passionately about. I think that she agrees that home-educated child performers should remain in scope of the registers. For that reason, we cannot accept the noble Baroness’s amendment, which would exclude all child performers from the registers. However, I am pleased to confirm that the Government intend to exclude school-registered child performers from the scope of the registers and will consult on this position as part of our wider consultation on the content of the regulations. I hope that that gives her the reassurance that she has been seeking in her conversations with us.
Amendment 130, also tabled by the noble Baroness, seeks to place a duty on local authorities to ensure that any children taking part in a performance, and who are not captured on the children not in school register, are registered under the existing child performance regulations. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s desire to ensure that children can take part in performance opportunities while also ensuring that appropriate safeguards are in place. The noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, made a very good point about making sure that all children can take up these incredible offers when they come along.
I reassure the noble Baroness that existing legislation already requires children undertaking certain performances and related activities to be licensed with the relevant local authority. That would remain the case regardless of whether a child was also registered on a children not in school register and, as such, this amendment is not required. We recognise the need to review child performance regulations, and the Government are committed to doing so, as was agreed when the noble Baroness met my noble friend the Minister and officials last September. This review will take account of her concerns, and I am sure that she will look forward to further evidence of that work coming forward. Putting children at the heart of everything we do throughout this legislation is central to our ambition to support young people in this country.
Government Amendment 128 seeks to clarify that children who attend school on agreed part-time arrangements can be included in the children not in school registers where they are also receiving education outside of a school setting. This amendment is necessary to ensure local authorities have oversight of those children and can be confident that their overall education is suitable.
Government Amendment 156 clarifies that a local authority may ask an out-of-school education provider to confirm whether they are providing education to children, whether or not those children live in the authority’s area. That will help local authorities identify children who are not recorded on registers but who should be. Not having this clarification risks a loophole where registration is avoided simply by sending children to providers outside their home authority.
Government Amendment 157 also clarifies how the provider duty will work in practice. The amendment would clarify that providers subject to the duty need to give information only on children living in England and Wales. We recognise that there are providers that have significant online or international offerings that may be captured by the duty on out-of-school education providers. As the children not in school registers apply only to children in England and Wales, it would be inappropriate for local authorities to receive details of children outside of these countries.
Amendment 157A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to publish annual anonymised statistics on the operation of the registers and school attendance orders. We already publish annual anonymised statistics on home-educated children and school attendance orders drawn from local authorities’ voluntary registers. I emphasise that, once the children not in school registers are implemented, the department intends to continue doing so; where this would not identify individuals, it will also publish the number of complaints and appeals, along with their outcomes.
Amendments 148C and 161B were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei—the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, added her name to the former; I do not want to leave her experience out of this. They would require the registers to be reviewed, their findings published, and for the registers to be re-approved by Parliament within a set timeframe. We will evaluate the impact of the registers following implementation and will communicate it to the House. It is unnecessary and inappropriate to create uncertainty for families and local authorities by placing sunset clauses in this legislation.
Amendment 161C, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to give parents an independent route of appeal to decisions made by a local authority under Sections 436B to 436G and to prevent local authority enforcement action where a parent has lodged an appeal, ombudsman complaint or judicial review, unless there is suspicion of harm to the child.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, I am overjoyed. I am so happy for the child performers of today and the future, because we are breaking down barriers that might prevent them having an exciting experience in the creative industry. I thank the Minister for partially accepting my amendments; I am most grateful for that.
Once again, I thank her and her team for the hard work which has gone on behind the scenes for us to get to this point. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, for his support—and for giving us an insight into his career; it was interesting to hear that from him. I also want to take the opportunity to thank the Minister for her clear commitment to reviewing the regulations that govern child performing, both in this country and abroad.
The creative industries are a source of great pride to our country, but at their very heart must be the well-being of the children who contribute so much to their success. I am therefore grateful to the Minister for recognising this and that the existing framework must keep pace with the realities of the modern world we live in. It is so important that we do that for our children.
I particularly welcome the Minister’s assurance that the review will be undertaken in close collaboration with industry colleagues and those with front-line experience. It is important that we listen to what they say; they are at the forefront of what is going on in the lives of children who are performers. Working together this way is essential if we are to strike the right balance, enabling opportunity and creativity while ensuring robust safeguards that protect children’s welfare, education and long-term prospects.
I look forward to continuing working with the Minister and her officials. The job is not done—there is a lot further to go. For that commitment and the constructive spirit in which this work will be undertaken and move forward, I sincerely offer my gratitude and beg leave to withdraw the amendment in my name.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify the intention that section 436B(5)(b)(ii) of the Education Act 1996, as inserted by clause 32, refers to a comparator child in full-time education.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(8) Before the end of the period of 15 days beginning with the day on which the local authority registers a child under this section, the local authority—(a) must consider where the child lives, and(b) may request the child's parent to allow the local authority to visit the child inside any of the homes in which the child lives.(9) If a request under subsection (8)(b) is refused by the person to whom it is made, the local authority must consider that to be a relevant factor in determining whether to serve a preliminary notice under section 436H.(10) Before the end of the period of 15 days beginning with the day on which the local authority includes in the register the information mentioned in section 436C(1)(e) in respect of a child, the local authority must consider the settings where the child is being educated that the local authority knows about.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide a new duty for local authorities to consider the child’s home and education settings, and a power to request a home visit, soon after registration under section 436B (as inserted by clause 32).
Baroness Barran
“(c) must request a visit if the local authority has ever taken any action under sections 31 or 47 of the Children Act 1989 or is currently taking action under section 17 of that Act, in relation to the child.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require the local authority to conduct a home visit where a child has ever been subject to care proceedings, named in a child protection plan or is currently classified as a child in need.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I am not going to divide the House on Amendment 131A, although I feel I ought to, but I would be grateful if the Minister could agree to write to me, and put a copy in the Library, explaining what the purpose of Amendment 131 is, because my amendment would have brought absolute clarity as to which children and which homes would receive a home visit. She said that children to whom Section 47 applied would get a home visit anyway, but the implication was that those other groups of children would not. It would be helpful to know how the Government are planning to give clarity to local authorities. At a high level, what will the guidance say? Are there powers that the Government are taking within the Bill that would allow them to introduce something like my amendment in future if it appeared to be necessary? If she could commit to write, I would be very grateful.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I am happy to commit to write and respond to those questions.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the register also contains the previous address of the child where they have lived at their current address for less than 12 months.
“(aa) any additional address if the child lives at more than one address;” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment will ensure that the register will include any additional address at which the child lives.
Lord Hacking
“(b) the names and home addresses of the parent or parents who are taking responsibility for the education of the child;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to identify the minimum requirement for providing information for the register and ensures that information is only included on parents who have responsibility for educating the child.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I will be speaking in this group on Amendments 134A, 139 and 140. At this stage, I should draw your Lordships’ attention to Amendment 135A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. The very first part of this amendment is almost identical to my Amendment 134A.
However, in the second part—which is a rather longer part—of Amendment 135A, which deals with the problem of excessive information being sought from home-schooling parents, the noble Baroness and noble Lord deal with it much more extensively than I do in my Amendments 139 and 140, but it is on the same subject.
Before I speak to my Amendment 134A, I should like to acknowledge the good progress that has been made on home-schooling issues in the three or four years that I have been involved in them in your Lordships’ House. First, there has been very good progress on the register, which is now to be called the not in school register. That is most welcome. The noble Baroness, Lady Barran, may remember that, with the previous Government’s Bill, I made it quite plain that I have always supported the institution of that register.
Secondly, I acknowledge the recognition that home schooling should not be secret, and that the local authority should know what home schooling is taking place. Thirdly, there is the recognition, which has come out now, of the role of the local authority to assist home-schooling parents. That was very well covered in the second bullet point on page 8 of my noble friend’s letter of 7 January and was even better covered by the Minister’s excellent and helpful speech at the beginning of group 3 during our present deliberations on Report.
This enables me to go, on a strong basis, to my Amendment 134A—previously Amendment 135. Its purpose is to protect a home-schooling parent and child from an offending other parent—for example, a father who has perpetrated serious sexual acts on the child, the parents having separated and now living in different abodes. Another example is protection from an offending father who has perpetrated serious domestic violence in the home. My amendment seeks to prevent the offending parent having knowledge of the address and whereabouts of the mother and child. As your Lordships will understand, all parents who have faced the ordeals that I have just described place tremendous importance on their whereabouts and address not being known.
The need for this amendment was brought to my attention, and to the attention of the noble Lords, Lords Crisp and Lord Frost, by a mother whose former husband had committed serious sexual acts on her son. Last June this mother attended a successful meeting of home-schooling mothers with the then responsible Minister, Stephen Morgan. It was a very successful meeting, and we thought we had made very good progress at it.
It is beyond our understanding how any father could seek to perpetrate sexual acts on his own children, boys or girls, and some as young as four years old. But it does happen and, I suggest, more frequently than we know about. Prosecuting authorities are in a difficult position and have extreme reluctance to prosecute when reliance has to be placed on a small child’s evidence. This amendment, therefore, is based on not just one mother’s concern but a universal concern for all home-schooling mothers who are now separated from an offending father and want that separation to be kept complete.
The problem is that, as drafted, the requirement on page 56 of the Bill is a requirement for the name and address of both parents to be in the register. This includes the offending father. Hence, my amendment seeks to change that wide allowance so that parents are in the register only if they
“are taking responsibility for the education of the child”.
In the helpful discussions that I have had, for which I thank my noble friend the Minister, with her officials, I have been told that the offending parent in the description that I have given will not have access to the register. This cannot be right—perhaps my noble friend will correct me. All persons named in the register must have the right to access that register—for example, just to check whether the name and address are correct. Once the offending father has access to the register, he has access to the address and whereabouts of the mother and the child. That is why I am extremely concerned, on behalf of all home-schooling mothers in a similar situation, that they should be properly protected.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to the amendments in my name in this group, namely Amendments 148A, 148B, 148D, 148E, 153A, 155A, 161D and 174A. Together, they are concerned with one question: how information about children and families is collected, used, retained and acted on under the Bill. Again, I begin by recognising that the Government have shown restraint where Ministers have strengthened scrutiny, tightened procedures and limited the scope for open-ended regulation-making, and it deserves acknowledgement. My amendments in this group are animated by a single concern: if Parliament is minded to create a register, it must be tightly bounded, purpose-limited and structured so that it does not normalise suspicion or routine burden and data sought must be proportionate to serving a legitimate aim and narrowly tailored. It must not indirectly discriminate against or unduly burden parents who choose to home educate when compared with children attending recognised schools.
Amendments 148A and 148B concern data use and data governance. The true risk of a register lies not only in what it collects but in what that information becomes over time. Data once shared rarely contracts. Once repurposed, it rarely remains confined to its original purpose. We are collecting quite a lot of data here on quite a lot of sensitive matters. Some have argued that this is really a kind of digital ID by the back door, which I do not think many of our citizens are very enamoured of right now.
Amendment 148A would draw a clear statutory boundary. It would provide that information may be shared only where necessary and proportionate for the education or welfare of the individual child, and it must not be repurposed for population-level profiling, predictive modelling, automated risk scoring or speculative secondary uses. This is not hostility to safeguarding, it is respect for trust. Safeguarding will collapse when families believe that information given for one reason will be later used for another. Amendment 148B would complement this by making explicit that all regulations governing the register must comply with data protection law by requiring consultation with the Information Commissioner and representatives of affected families before regulations are made. This is not decorative, it is constitutional. When people cannot foresee how their data will be used, trust dissolves.
Amendment 148D would introduce a deletion rule so that information must be removed after five years or earlier where the child is no longer within scope, unless there are recorded safeguarding grounds for attention. Childhood is not a permanent status, and our legal architecture should reflect that. Permanent records create permanent consequences. This amendment would prevent the register becoming a life history file for families who have done nothing wrong while preserving the ability to retain data where there is a genuine and ongoing safeguarding justification.
Amendment 148E is equally important. It would place into statute the principle that Ministers have articulated today, namely, that education otherwise than at school is lawful and must not of itself be treated as a reasonable cause to suspect harm or educational failure. I know there was an assurance about this principle that home education is legitimate, but much of what we have seen in the Bill does not seem to suggest that that belief is held tightly by those who drafted it. Presumptions are powerful. Once a category is treated as suspicious, every interaction becomes shaped by that assumption. This amendment would ensure that the burden of justification remains where it belongs: with the state.
Amendments 153A and 155A address burden and frequency. Amendment 153A would place a clear ceiling on routine requests for meetings, information or home access of no more than once in any 12-month period, unless there is reasonable cause to suspect significant harm, in which case more frequent engagement remains possible but is still bounded. It would make clear that a parent’s failure to comply with a routine request must not of itself be treated as evidence of unsuitable education and that a parent’s notice to home educate takes legal effect when given. This is about temporal proportionality. Frequency is not neutral. Repetition changes the character of a relationship. Rolling engagement becomes rolling surveillance.
Amendment 155A would complement this by requiring that information demands must be reasonably required, proportionate and not of such volume or frequency that they materially damage the child’s education by diverting parental time and resources away from teaching. This is a real risk. Oversight that crowds out education defeats its purpose. I have also tabled Amendment 161D, which would require written reasons for decisions to provide families with a right to correct factual inaccuracies in the register. Large systems generate errors. If we are going to create records that shape how families are treated, those records must be contestable and correctable.
I support the proposed cyber security Amendments 172 and 247A, which would prevent these provisions being commenced. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a great point in Committee about reviewing the cyber security risks around storing this data, which is so important given that just recently we had a breach of government data.
I should be clear about what I cannot support. I cannot support approaches that normalise routine monitoring or turn lawful difference into a reason for scrutiny, nor can I support amendments that increase admin burdens on families by default rather than in response to evidence of harm.
The question before us is not whether the state may act where there is evidence of risk—it must—but what kind of system are we going to build? Is it going to be targeted, proportionate and trusted or one that drifts into routine suspicion and routine intrusion? I commend these amendments to the House.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 135A in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Before doing so, I once again thank the Minister for having reduced the requirements in this section considerably—I am very pleased not to have to comment on whether Scouts, rugby clubs, cricket clubs or anything are included—and getting rid of the 15-day requirement to report. Those are significant improvements.
In terms of process, I shall just pick up on one point, which I raised earlier, so I will not speak at length on it, about how this process of putting information on the register fits in with the annual reporting process that happens in an awful lot of authorities. That may be a local issue rather than a national one, but I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response on that.
Amendment 135A from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is largely heading in the same direction as the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking. I think it is proportionate. I think it is important that proposed new subsection (3) states:
“Nothing … prevents a local authority from requesting further information … where the authority has reasonable cause to believe that a child may not be receiving a suitable education”.
In other words, it is a two-step process so that one does not automatically assume that the parents are guilty, as it were, because there would be a two-step process before the local authority asks for more information.
I shall draw out one point that the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, made, which is that not all parents need to be recorded on the register, only those who are taking responsibility for the education of the child. That is entirely in keeping with where we are currently, in that to withdraw a child from registration to school, you need only one parent’s signature. It seems to me that, in putting them on the register in this way, you only need those parents who are taking responsibility. It is not necessary to involve other parents, including those who may be a danger to the other parent or to the child. I simply make those points.
I have a lot of sympathy for the various amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, around the security of the use of information, not least because I believe I am right saying that we are talking not about one register but 150. This is not a national register, this is 150 registers. What chance do we think that somewhere in those 150 problems will occur in terms of security and of people getting access? I think these are real concerns, and I will be very interested to hear what the Minister says about the various amendments that the noble Lord, Lord Wei, has tabled.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has just said, particularly the thanks to the Minister for the time and consideration of civil servants and the many excellent government amendments in this group that reflect that.
I too think that Amendment 135A and the versions of it tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, are really worth considering and, alongside them, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, has said, Amendment 172A and other aspects of cyber security. This is a collection of information about children. We need to be very careful about it. I hope the Government will not allow local authorities to develop their own versions of software to do this but will do this centrally and to the highest standards.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, my amendments in this group pull in two slightly different directions. If the Minister and her officials are confused, I apologise, but I will try to explain why.
The main thrust of my amendments, as the noble Lords, Lord Crisp and Lord Hacking, both said, is to try to simplify the amount of specific detail required to be held on the register in future. I too very much welcome the Government’s decision to simplify a lot of the information that was in the original draft of the Bill and to leave a bit more room for professional curiosity on the part of the home education team in the local authority. My Amendments 135A, 135B and 146A all point in this direction and give the Government different options—a pick-and-mix menu to achieve this end. Amendment 146B would make it clear that a local authority can request further information where it believes that a child might not be receiving a suitable education or that their welfare may be at risk.
In the other direction is my Amendment 143B— I hope the Minister will be able to address this specifically when she sums up—which would establish a duty to record information relating to care proceedings. I think that is missing from the current list, but the Minister will tell me whether I am right or wrong on that. This would include information relating not just to the child but to their siblings. We are all aware of cases where siblings or half-siblings are in care proceedings, perhaps if they are babies or under five, but an older child might not be. It feels highly relevant, if a child is going to be taken out of school, that the local authority has that level of concern about other children in the family. I hope the Minister feels able to accept that and perhaps bring back a government amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, as noble Lords have noted, the amendments in this group are all about how we reduce the burden on parents of providing information for children not in school registers while maintaining the purpose of those registers. As I said in the previous group, I have taken seriously noble Lords’ views that the provisions as drafted in the Bill were too onerous for parents. At the same time, it is important to remember that the system we are proposing is still incredibly light-touch relative to what is mandated in many other countries.
I turn to the amendments proposed by my noble friend Lord Hacking—134A, 139, 140 and 141—and Amendments 135A and 135B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. These would remove certain information requirements or replace them with more limited alternatives. It is essential that local authorities have the information they need to assess whether a child’s education is suitable and full-time. I fully appreciate the intention behind these amendments, but reducing the scope of information would, in practice, make those assessments significantly harder. It is also vital that safeguarding information and other relevant information on registers be recorded consistently. Recent safeguarding and serious case reviews have shown how often opportunities to identify children suffering or at risk of significant harm are missed when information is fragmented or incomplete.
However, I hope I can provide some reassurance to my noble friend Lord Hacking about access for parents in the sort of circumstances he identified. There are no powers for parents to access information on their children. We have thought this through very carefully, particularly from the perspective of victims of domestic abuse and other forms of abuse. For example, we have considered whether the estranged parent could make a subject access request to acquire information. Local authorities are strictly required to have clear and well-defined processes to help staff handle such requests safely and lawfully. We do not believe, therefore, that the fear my noble friend outlined, which is a quite understandable fear, could legally exist. I hope that provides some reassurance.
On the detail, Amendments 134A and 135A would require only the names and home addresses of the parents directly providing the education. Yet, as I said in Committee, Section 7 of the Education Act 1996 places the duty of securing a suitable education on all parents. If these amendments were accepted, we could face situations where no parent is recorded at all, making it harder for local authorities to identify and support children missing education.
Amendment 135A would also limit information for inclusion to the primary type of education, while Amendment 139 would require information on other providers only where they deliver the child’s principal education. In practice, this would not work because where education is from multiple sources, for example a parent and a tutor, there is no clear way of determining which is primary.
Amendments 135B, 140 and 141 would remove the requirement to record time spent in education and information concerning education received from those other than the parents. Yet this information may be precisely what allows local authorities to understand a child’s overall educational picture. If, for instance, a child spends substantial time with a provider offering a very narrow curriculum, the authority must check that they are receiving a balanced education elsewhere as a core part of assessing suitability.
Amendment 146B tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, alongside Amendment 135A, seeks to clarify when further information may be requested. I appreciate the noble Baroness’s intention, but it would mean that the local authority may request further information only where it has reasonable cause to believe that a child may not be receiving a suitable education or their welfare may be at risk. Yet the purpose of the registers is to cover all children not in school and gather the information that enables authorities to form those very judgments. The information being sought might be exactly the information needed to make that judgment.
At this point I will respond to the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, on the group before last. On the point about annual reports, the high-level information required for registers is not intended to replace the more detailed informal inquiries that local authorities undertake—what the noble Lord refers to as the annual reporting system—to understand whether a child is receiving a suitable education. Should the amendment from the previous group be accepted, regulations could outline how the updates could be requested and statutory guidance would set out how these processes should align. On the point about whether parents ignore the annual request for meetings if the meeting has already happened, we will expect local authorities to adapt their systems in line with the new legislation. If there has recently been a meeting and the local authority is satisfied that the education is suitable, we would not expect it to request another soon afterwards. We will put this into statutory guidance.
Amendments 153A and 155A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would limit requests from local authorities for information, meetings or home visits, and prevent non-compliance being used as evidence of unsuitable education. The extensive package of government amendments to reduce the frequency of updates required from parents, which I will come to shortly, will address many of the noble Lord’s concerns. His amendments would also restrict home visits and meetings, when some parents welcome them as the easiest way to provide information. The suggestion that deregistration from school could be blocked by requiring a meeting is also misplaced. Children covered by new Sections 436B to 436G are already out of school and, if home-educated, already off the school roll. The amendments would give the Secretary of State new powers to penalise local authorities for breaching these limits. However, local authorities must already follow the law. The Education Act 1996 gives the Secretary of State sufficient powers to intervene when a local authority fails to comply.
Amendment 148E, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would prevent information on the registers being used to judge whether a child is at risk of harm or not receiving a suitable education. But local authorities must be able to use information on registers to make those assessments. Where information on registers indicates that a child may not be suitably educated or that safeguarding concerns exist and any informal inquiries have not resolved matters, authorities have a duty to act.
Amendment 146A tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, would prevent the Government prescribing additional categories of information for recording in future, even where necessary to improve understanding of this cohort, inform local and national policy, or better target support, including, for example, information on exam entries or outcomes for home-educated children, in which many noble Lords have expressed interest. Indeed, the noble Baroness’s own Amendment 143B shows the value of being able to add future categories, namely the details of care and supervision order applications, where we can see the logic of her argument. We would be happy to consider prescribing this information when developing regulations, and we will publicly consult on this.
Amendments 148A, 148B and 148D tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, concern the protection and retention of data on the registers. I appreciate the concern for the protection of children’s data, which of course I share, but these amendments are unnecessary. The registers will be required to comply with all applicable data protection legislation, which requires data not to be kept longer than necessary. Furthermore, entries on registers will be deleted once a child ceases to be within scope.
Amendment 174A tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would remove Clause 34. Clause 34 enables information to be disclosed when required or authorised by children not in school measures without it breaching any obligation of confidence. This is important for local authorities to fulfil their duties, including sharing information where it promotes or safeguards a child’s education or welfare. The department continues to engage with the Information Commissioner’s Office to identify and mitigate any data-sharing risks.
Amendments 172A and 247A by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require the National Cyber Security Centre to certify and test the security arrangements for registers before implementation. As I said in Committee, this is unnecessary. Local authorities are already expected to comply with cyber-security standards, which are an integral part of their wider data protection obligations. There will also not be a single national register but over 150 local registers across England and Wales. The National Cyber Security Centre’s role is advisory, not regulatory, so not only would requiring it to test and certify each register inappropriately widen its remit but it would be a colossal resource demand and unnecessarily delay implementation of these much-needed registers.
Amendment 161D, also tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, would require local authorities to give written reasons for all decisions relating to the registers and to offer parents opportunities to correct inaccuracies. Local authorities will exercise discretion across a range of decisions, from adding information to the registers to seeking further details from education providers or determining what support to offer. It would be inappropriate to require written reasons in every case, particularly where safeguarding is involved. However, for support duty decisions we will make it clear in statutory guidance that written reasons should be provided. As for correcting factual errors, UK GDPR already gives parents the right to have inaccurate data rectified.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
I thank my noble friend the Minister. She and her officials have clearly thought very carefully about the provisions of this Bill and have come to some conclusions. My difficulty is that I think they have come to the wrong conclusions, and I would therefore be very grateful—and I will be withdrawing my amendment—if my noble friend and her officials looked carefully at what I argued relating to my two sets of amendments. If there is any way they can find to accommodate my concerns, I would be very grateful.
The central point is that what I proposed in both sets of amendments was a safe way of doing it, and it must be the safe way of doing it: changing the drafting on page 58 of the Bill from the
“home address of each parent of the child”
to each parent or parents who have responsibility for their education. That is the safe way of dealing with that. Likewise, on the amount of information being sought from home-schooling parents, my amendment is the safe way of doing it. I am asking the Minister and her officials to look at the safe way relating to both sets of amendments, but having said that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(d) an estimate of the overall total amount of time that the child spends receiving education from parents of the child;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a parent to provide an estimate of the overall amount of time, rather than the actual amount of time, that the child spends receiving education from their parents, for the purposes of the register of children not in school.
“(da) an estimate of the overall total amount of time that the child spends receiving education from persons other than parents of the child;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a parent to provide an estimate of the overall amount of time, rather than the actual amount of time, that the child spends receiving education from persons other than their parents, for the purposes of the register of children not in school.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I remind the House that if Amendment 138 is agreed, I cannot call Amendments 139 and 140 because of pre-emption.
Amendment 138
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(e) if a particular provider other than the child’s parent is providing education to the child for more than the prescribed amount of time—(i) the name and address of the provider;(ii) a description of the type of provider that it is;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment of clause 32 at page 60, line 33 would provide that the requirement to provide detailed information about education providers other than a parent will only apply if a provider is providing education that exceeds an amount of time specified in regulations.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a parent to provide an estimate of the total amount of time, rather than the actual amount of time, that the child spends receiving education from a provider, for the purposes of the register of children not in school.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require a parent to provide an estimate of the amount of time, rather than the actual amount of time, that the child spends receiving education from a provider without parental supervision, for the purposes of the register of children not in school.
Baroness Blake of Leeds
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that the register of children not in school would be required to contain information about all schools or institutions that a child attends or has attended in the past, including those which are institutions not in the further education sector.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
The government amendments in this group seek to strengthen the support and engagement local authorities offer to families who wish to home educate. As my noble friend the Minister said during Committee, it is vital that local authorities build constructive relationships with parents. Such relationships are the most effective way for local authorities to understand a child’s education and circumstances and to identify any support families may want or require. The Department for Education is committed to fostering these partnerships wherever possible.
Government Amendment 144 would amend Section 436C(2)(j) to remove the specific reference to institutions in the further education sector. This would ensure that the department can require local authorities, via regulations, to record information about any education institution a registered child is attending or has attended in the past where the local authority has the information or can reasonably obtain it. Such information could be beneficial to include on registers because a history of establishments attended will give local authorities a clearer idea of the child’s circumstances and educational history. This understanding will enable the local authority to offer and provide more bespoke support to the child. For those parents who feel forced into home education, a record of previous schools attended would also give the local authority insight into which settings parents were dissatisfied with. Further analysis of this information could reveal where there may be gaps in support for parents within the school system, enabling the local authority or central government to take action.
Government Amendment 146 would make it clear that information on young carers may be prescribed for inclusion in children not in school registers. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Young, for raising this important matter in Committee, and the Carers Trust for its tireless work on ensuring that young carers are identified and supported. As my noble friend the Minister said in Committee, knowing whether a child is a young carer provides important context for an elective home education officer, both in assessing whether the child is receiving a full-time suitable education, and in ensuring that the family is signposted to any relevant support to which they are entitled. Prescribing this information for inclusion on the children not on school register would ensure that local authorities must record it if they can reasonably obtain it.
Turning to government Amendment 158, the department’s guidance is clear that when a parent elects to home-educate, they must be prepared to take full responsibility for their child’s education. This includes making arrangements for access to exams the child may wish to take. Local authorities should, however, be sources of advice for home-educating families. That is why we have tabled Amendment 158, would make it clear that local authorities must give advice and information about access to GCSE exams if requested by the parent of a home-educated child registered on their children not on school register. This advice could include signposting to local centres that may be open to taking private candidates; providing information on how to enter GCSEs as a private candidate; and signposting the Joint Council for Qualifications’ list of exam centres that accept private candidates, and organisations that provide guidance on exams or careers, such as Ofqual and the National Careers Service.
At a national level, the Department for Education will send communications to schools encouraging them to take private candidates and to join the list of centres held by the JCQ. We will engage with the JCQ to explore options for updating this list earlier in the year, ensuring that families have timely access to accurate information to support their planning.
Government Amendment 159 would require local authorities to hold forums with home-educating parents twice a year as part of their support duty, if there is an appetite on the part of parents for them to do so. These forums would be an opportunity for the community to provide feedback and to ask the local authority how the registered support duty and school attendance order process is operating. In turn, the forums would provide local authorities with a better understanding of the needs and views of home-educating families in their areas, laying the foundation for more constructive relationships.
Government Amendment 161 would ensure that the duty on local authorities to offer a biannual engagement forum is targeted specifically at home-educated parents. This would ensure that the forums remain focused on their core purpose. We know that some parents whose children are on a school roll or whose education is arranged by the local authority may also want the opportunity to speak directly to a representative from the local authority. However, where the issues relate to other duties, such as those under Section 19 of the Education Act 1996, those discussions are often highly technical or specific to an individual case. Such matters would not be well suited to an open forum of this kind, so those parents would be better supported through the existing routes of communication available to them. I beg to move.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 160. As I did in the last group, I start by saying that I am grateful to the Minister and her colleagues for having moved in some way on the information provided about exams, and for setting up a forum; it will be interesting to see how that operates. I am also very sympathetic to Amendment 161A from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, in which he proposes setting up a proper forum where parents are asked to take some responsibility for the relationship. That seems quite a positive, and maybe a longer-term, way forward.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise, first, to thank the Government, on behalf of myself and the noble Lord, Lord Young of Cookham, for bringing forward Amendment 146, putting carers on the register. We heard moving testimony in Committee about some incredibly young carers aged eight, nine or 10 looking after several members of their families—siblings and parents. In some cases, they were apparently being home-educated, but from the point of view of the adults they were caring for, looking after them took priority. That is why it is so important and so helpful that they will be recorded.
I also support my noble friend Lord Crisp and Amendment 175ZC from the noble Lord, Lord Wei, which is along the same lines—it is for children who are coming to the final parts of their home education and will, one hopes, take and pass exams. There is a real postcode lottery, particularly post-Covid, in access to examination centres. In parts of the country such as Cornwall or large parts of the north of England, it is extraordinarily difficult for parents to access examination centres for their children. In some cases, they have to travel one and a half to three hours to go to them. In many cases, their children are not taking a single paper; they might be taking three or four papers for mathematics, so they have to go back and forth. Some of those children will have some challenging behaviours and may find that an examination centre is not an environment that they are entirely comfortable in. Having it within reasonable reach and access of where one lives is exceptionally important.
For those reasons, I hope that the Minister will think carefully about this and look at some of the facts and figures. The charity, Education Otherwise, has looked into this in great detail and has a lot of really quite useful and compelling information. I hope that if the department is prepared to look at that, it might be able to think again.
Lord Wei (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 161A, 175ZA, 175ZB and 175ZC in my name. These amendments sit in a part of the Bill that would be felt most sharply not in Whitehall but in kitchens and living rooms by parents doing their best for children whose needs do not fit neatly in the school system. When Parliament reaches into family life, it has to do so with care, because it is easy to create a framework that looks reasonable on paper and yet breathes mistrust in practice.
Again, I want to acknowledge at the outset the Government’s movement in this group. Government Amendment 158 recognises the reality of exam access and ensures that information about GCSE routes can be provided to parents who ask for it. Amendment 159 creates a regular forum for parents to raise concerns and discuss how this regime operates. Amendment 161 tidies the drafting around exam-related provisions. These are sensible steps. They start to show an understanding that families need information and a channel of engagement, and I welcome them.
Yet there remains a gap between permission and protection. Information may be offered, but access can still fail, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and others. A forum may be held, but families can still feel unheard when nothing changes. These amendments in my name aim to close that gap with light-touch safeguards that strengthen legitimacy and reduce conflict. With the Government having shown that they are listening, I think that many of us hope that, on these quite non-contentious amendments, they will also come back with suggested changes to the Bill, as well as afterwards in the statutory guidance, to understand these realities.
Amendment 161A would require each local authority to establish a home education parental advisory board, composed primarily of parents with recent experience of elective home education in the area. We are not trying to create new bureaucracy for its own sake; it is about a practical feedback loop. Families most affected by these powers are often those most able to spot unintended consequences earlier than we can in this environment. When policy is made without their input, misunderstanding becomes routine, and routine misunderstanding can become the culture of the system. Advisory boards would keep local authorities grounded in reality; they would create discipline around reasoning, and when an authority departs from a formal recommendation, my amendment suggests that it needs to explain why. That simple requirement can improve decision-making and build trust.
I want to express strong support for Amendment 160 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, which addresses a long-standing injustice that the House should not tolerate any longer. Home-educated children face serious obstacles in accessing examinations. Parents are left to navigate a patchwork of centres, fees, refusals, capacity limits and inconsistent arrangements. This is not just in small cases—it is in many instances. Qualifications open doors, and access is important; we must not make the children pay the price. With my own children, we had to travel several hundred miles to the south coast pretty much for all their GCSEs, and you can imagine how many they did, how many you multiply that by, and how many hotel stays that meant for my dear wife, who did most of the heavy lifting, although I drove a few times myself.
My Amendment 175ZC would place a clear duty on local authorities to secure reasonable access to approved exam centres, building on the thinking around Amendment 160, including adjustments for children with special educational needs. That would ensure that the responsibility is not left just to good will or market convenience. Somebody mentioned that, in the summer of last year, around 47,000 home-educated children in England were in their exam years, yet there are fewer than 200 centres listed as supporting them, many with limited capacity—and there is uneven geographic coverage. Whether a child can access qualifications should not depend on commercial viability or geography; we need to provide equitable access to this basic infrastructure as a responsibility of the state.
Amendment 175ZA deals with the related harm that is already appearing. Some providers are withdrawing opportunities for home-educated children in anticipation of new compliance burdens. Museums, activities, learning programmes and even basic services can become quietly harder to access. That may not be the Government’s intention but, because you are talking about a higher level of scrutiny and information-sharing requirements, that is already causing people to hold back. This amendment would draw a clear statutory line against discrimination and extra administrative hurdles imposed solely because a child is educated otherwise than at school. Lawful educational choice should not become a reason for exclusion.
Finally, Amendment 175ZB addresses the people who will operate these powers. I welcome the fact that the Government have indicated that training will be provided to those in local authorities working with home-educating families, and I welcome that. The House knows that guidance can be diluted over time, especially when you are under pressure and you have lots of families to look after with not much more funding. This amendment would require a national training standard to be issued, covering elective home education and related SEND, lawful decision-making and the avoidance of unconscious bias when dealing with these families. These families deserve consistency, and officers deserve clarity; a system with serious powers needs competent hands.
Safeguarding works best when families co-operate, and co-operation relies on trust. Trust is earned through fairness, understanding and clear routes for participation. These amendments would strengthen these foundations, and I hope that the Government show good will towards the many home-educating families who are going to have huge disruption to their lives in the coming years by looking at these amendments and others today, especially those on the area of access to exams. I urge the House to support them.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly to Amendments 160 and 175ZC, which we have heard so much about. The noble Baroness, Lady Blake, when talking to Amendment 158, painted a very rosy picture of parents being signposted to happy centres where their children could all take wonderful exams and obviously achieve enormous success. However, the reality, from what I have seen and heard, is a very different thing. Amendment 175ZC provides a very clean solution.
Access to exams is the golden thread. We want as many of our students to succeed—they have to do their exams. If they are driving hundreds of miles, that is not going to work. I genuinely think that working in partnership with local state schools would be quite a simple thing. There is always room in an exam hall for an extra 10 people, and you have the invigilators already. It would be a very simple thing, so I urge the Government to accept these amendments.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, in the spring of 2024, my noble friend Lady Barran was kind enough to allow me to explore what is going wrong with GCSE provision for home-educated people. I was foolish enough to think that the election would be in October, so I never got to the end of that process, but it is clear from the work that I did that there are a number of things the Government can do to help.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches support the very important amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. It would be very easy to say, “You chose to be home-educated, so you go with the fees and everything involved”, but we are talking about children and young people here. We are talking about their future and, whether they are home-educated or taught in a school, they deserve the best possible opportunities.
We started today’s sitting on Report with the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Bird, about targets and about children in poverty, basically, and not all children who are home-educated are from posh, middle-class situations. Many of them are from deprived communities, from working-class communities, and they need support in two ways. One is that they need help in terms of access to exam centres and doing their exams and, secondly, they need some finance. If we really want to start this new dawn of partnership with local authorities and home educators working together, what a wonderful way to start that off by making a real positive gesture. The Government talk all the time, quite rightly, about how important it is to give all children and young people opportunities. They talk about developing skills. Well, if they do not have the opportunities because they do not have the money or cannot access an exam, they are just wasted.
My final point is that I have often thought that, if all those children who are home-educated suddenly went back to school en bloc, it would cost the state hundreds of millions of pounds. So, come on: for a few pence the Government could actually make a real gesture to these families, and that would be the start of a new relationship, a new dawn.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition are of the view that the government amendments seem entirely reasonable, and we therefore support them. While we understand the intentions behind the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Wei, we cannot support them. These issues were addressed in Committee by the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and I will not repeat those arguments on Report.
Similarly with the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, we believe that local authorities simply do not have the capacity right now to be committing new funding, however small. So, while we understand the noble Lord’s intentions, we cannot support his amendment, but we welcome the opportunity to hear the response from the Government on the critical issues highlighted by all noble Lords thus far.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their very considered comments, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, for bringing his experience into the Chamber. I thank him for the considerate way that he has approached this. I hope we will continue to have a constructive dialogue as we move forward on these important issues.
Amendment 160, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, and Amendments 161A and 175ZC tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seek to require local authorities to act supportively towards, and establish advisory boards of, home-educating families, and ensure that home-educated children can access examinations. As I said at the beginning of this group, local authorities should be sources of support for home-educating families. Noble Lords’ engagement has been constructive and I reassure them that this will be further strengthened by the support duty in the Bill, which is the first ever duty on local authorities to provide support specifically for home-educating families, as well as the government amendments in this group, which clarify that information on GCSE exam access should be provided as part of the support duty and require local authorities to arrange biannual engagement forums, as we have discussed.
We also recognise the importance of ensuring that parents are responsible for bearing the costs of any exams they may enter their child for before they make the decision to withdraw them from school. This is something already made clear in the department’s Elective Home-education guidance and which we would expect to be discussed as part of the mandatory meetings pilots that my noble friend described earlier. To expand on this, while some of these things seem straightforward, they are more involved than perhaps has been suggested. The question is: why can we not require local authorities to find exam centres for all home-educated students? This would involve a local authority forcing a state school or college to accommodate a home-educated pupil. We do not think this is right or appropriate. Exam centres, schools, colleges and private institutions rightly take their own decisions on whether they can accept private candidates based on their individual circumstances, such as financial and administrative capacity and logistical considerations. Schools and colleges have finite resources and exams must be delivered in line with strict regulatory requirements, including desk spacing, appropriate invigilator-to-candidate ratios and the secure administration of assessments to ensure that they are conducted fairly and safely. When a centre is able to accommodate a private candidate within these requirements, we fully encourage it to do so. However, it would not be appropriate to require a centre to breach exam regulations or compromise the integrity of the assessment, or to require a school with a full exam hall potentially to exclude one of their own pupils to make space for a private candidate. Instead, we encourage arrangements to be based on an understanding of each exam centre’s local circumstances and relationships.
However, the department will contact both state-funded and independent schools and colleges to encourage them to accept private candidates and to be included on the list of centres published by the JCQ, as appropriate. To pick up on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Russell, we will also work with the JCQ to explore whether this list can be made available earlier in the year so that families have timely and accurate information to support their planning.
In addition, we will update our guidance to local authorities, encouraging them to provide clear and accessible information for home-educating families at an early stage about the qualifications and exam centres in their area. This will help families to consider exam arrangements before starting a course of study, make informed choices about assessment options and avoid unnecessary travel, where possible.
Lord Wei (Con)
I welcome this timely provision of information for families. I speak for myself, but Peers here have also spoken about the need for exam access and would not want to burden state or other schools that have completely full exam halls. I wonder whether, maybe through a letter, we could have a further conversation with the department about this.
As that information is gathered and you discover what access there is in a local authority, if there literally is none for exams, could there not be some dialogue with the local schools? This would not be to force them to do anything they cannot do, or cannot afford to do, but just to ask how many spare desks they have in their exam halls, which they probably will be able to tell you very quickly. Then, that will allow conversations to happen about creating something in the area, which often may be absent, as we found.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that intervention. This is exactly what we are proposing: there needs to be that dialogue, to have a better understanding of what is—or is not—available locally. The noble Lord mentioned his own circumstance, having to travel a long distance. Perhaps if he had been able to have a conversation about which exam boards operate in his local area, that might have made a difference.
That situation, of the offer from different exam boards, is unique to England, which obviously means different syllabuses—which has an impact. The earlier conversations we are proposing will hopefully bring that out. It is difficult to be too prescriptive at this point, because of the different circumstances in different localities. It is for those areas to make clear what provision they are able to make.
In relation to Amendment 175ZC, it is also important to highlight that the Equality Act 2010 already places a statutory duty on awarding organisations to provide reasonable adjustments for disabled students in exams and assessments. This applies to all learners, irrespective of whether they attend a school or are home-educated. I hope that answers the point the noble Lord, Lord Wei, raised about equalities.
Amendment 175ZA, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to ensure that home-educated children and families are not unfairly disadvantaged or subjected to additional administrative and evidential requirements. Of course, we agree that home-educating families and children should not be unfairly disadvantaged. However, the reality is that many services are accessible to children through their school. When a family makes the choice to electively home-educate, they are opting out of this system. This is why our guidance is clear that parents should ensure that they are fully informed about home education before they enter into it. There are existing duties under equalities law to ensure that organisations do not discriminate, and our guidance is clear that any request for evidence must be proportionate. Private businesses, such as many education providers and examination centres, must retain autonomy over who their services are available to, as long as they comply with the law.
Amendment 175ZB, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wei, seeks to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the training of local authority officers on the children not in school measures. I am happy to reassure the noble Lord that we will be developing the training package for local authorities, focused on their new duties. This training will be co-developed with and co-delivered by home education representatives, and we will engage with relevant stakeholders, including our implementation forums, and safeguarding and domestic abuse organisations, on the materials to be included in this package.
With these comments, I therefore hope the changes the Government are proposing have addressed noble Lords’ concerns. I also thank the noble Earl, Lord Effingham, for his comments and explanation of the position he is taking.
“(la) whether the local authority exercised any of its functions under section 436B(8), (9) or (10), 436H(7A), (7B) or 436I(3) in relation to the child and the outcomes of any consideration of home and education settings or home visits conducted under those provisions;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow the outcomes of any home visits or consideration of the child’s home and education settings to be prescribed as information that may be included in the register of children not in school.
“(la) whether the child is a young carer within the meaning of section 17ZA(3) of the Children Act 1989, as qualified by section 17ZB(3) of that Act;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would amend the list of information that the register of children not in school must contain if prescribed in regulations under section 436C(2) of the Education Act 1996 (as inserted by clause 32) to include whether the child is a young carer.
“(e) how amounts of time and estimates of amounts of time are to be calculated and recorded for the purposes of subsection (1)(d), (da) and (e)(iv);”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendments of clause 32 at page 58, lines 20, 21, 32 and 33 and would ensure that regulations made under section 436C(4) of the Education Act 1996 (inserted by clause 32) can also make provision about how time estimates are to be calculated.
“(6) In subsection (1)(e), “prescribed amount of time” means an amount of time prescribed—(a) by reference to a number of hours in, or a proportion of, a week or other period;(b) by reference to a proportion of the time a child spends receiving education;(c) in any other way.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment of clause 32 at page 58, lines 22 to 27.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my other amendment of clause 32 at page 61, line 5 and would ensure that section 436D(2)(b) only applies to information required to be included in the register by section 436C(1)(a) to (c).
“(ba) inform the authority, on request, if there have been any changes, of which the parent is aware, to any of the information mentioned in section 436C(1)(d), (da) or (e) since the information was last provided to the authority, and provide the authority with information about those changes, or confirm that there have been no changes, and”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the parent of a registered child to inform the local authority about changes to the child’s education when requested to do so by the local authority, rather than requiring parents to inform the authority every time there is a change.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a parent of a registered child is not obliged to inform the local authority when the child is no longer of compulsory school age.
“(2A) A local authority—(a) must make a request mentioned in subsection (2)(ba) in relation to each child registered by the local authority under section 436B at least once a year, but(b) may not make such a request more frequently than once every three months.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a local authority must request a parent to provide information about changes to information about education at least once a year, but not more frequently than once every 3 months.
“(ca) in the case of the duty in subsection (2)(ba), such period of not less than 15 days as the local authority specify in the request;”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide the relevant period of time for complying with the new duty introduced by my second amendment of clause 32 at page 61, line 5.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 32 at page 61, line 39.
“(e) any combination of the arrangements mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d);(f) any one or more of the arrangements mentioned in paragraphs (a) to (d) and attendance at a relevant school.” Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that attendance at a relevant school is only relevant for section 436D(5) (inserted by clause 32) where it is combined with arrangements in paragraphs (a) to (d) of that subsection.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that a local authority may ask an education provider to confirm whether they are providing out-of-school education for children whether or not those children live in the authority’s area.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that the duty of the education provider to provide certain information to a local authority under section 436E of the Education Act 1996 (as inserted by clause 32) applies in relation to children living in England and Wales.
“(c) information about access to examinations for the General Certificate of Secondary Education.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would add information about access to GCSE exams to the list of examples of matters about which a local authority can provide information, if such information is requested by the parent of a child registered under section 436B (as inserted by clause 32).
“(2A) A local authority in England must offer parents of children registered by the authority under section 436B the opportunity to attend a forum to discuss the operation of sections 436B to 436P.(2B) The offer must be made twice per year and if it is accepted by at least one person to whom it is made, the local authority must arrange for the forum to take place.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would place a duty on local authorities in England to offer parents of registered children the opportunity to attend a forum to discuss the requirements of the provisions about children not in school inserted into the Education Act 1996 by clauses 32 and 33.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my second amendment of clause 32 at page 64, line 36 and would set out the circumstances in which the new duties would not apply.
“(3) In section 569(2A)—(a) after “section” insert “436B(6), 436C(1)(e), 436C(2), 436C(4), 436E(1)(a), 436E(7), 436E(9), 436F(1), 436F(2),”;(b) after “550ZC(7)” insert “, or under paragraph 5 of Schedule 31A”.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that all regulations made by the Secretary of State under the listed provisions of the Education Act 1996 as inserted by clause 32 relating to the registration of children not in school will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the changes made by clause 32(4), which substitutes references to the “National Assembly for Wales” for “Senedd Cymru” in section 569 of the Education Act 1996. These changes are not needed because of my amendment of clause 32 at page 65, line 27.
“(5) In section 569(2B)—(a) omit “A statutory instrument containing”;(b) after “397” insert “, 436I(6)”;(c) for the words after “the Welsh Ministers” substitute “are subject to the Senedd annulment procedure (see section 37E of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).”(5A) In section 569(2BA)—(a) omit the words from the beginning to “provision)”;(b) for the words after “2018” substitute “are subject to the Senedd approval procedure (see section 37C of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019).”(5B) In section 569(2BB)—(a) omit the words from the beginning to “provision)”;(b) after “section” insert “436B(6), 436C(1)(e), 436C(2), 436C(4), 436E(1)(a), 436E(7), 436E(9), 436F(1), 436F(2) or”;(c) after “579(3C)” insert “, or under paragraph 5 of Schedule 31A”;(d) for the words after “579(3C)” substitute “are subject to the Senedd approval procedure (see section 37C of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that regulations made by the Welsh Ministers under the listed provisions of the Education Act 1996 (as inserted by clauses 32 and 33) would be subject to the Senedd approval procedure (see section 37C of the Legislation (Wales) Act 2019 (anaw 4)).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would allow a local authority to serve a preliminary notice for a school attendance order where the local authority has taken action under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 during the period of 5 years prior to the date on which the notice is to be served.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would mean that a preliminary notice for a school attendance order cannot be served by a local authority where a parent has failed to tell the authority that their child is no longer eligible for registration by that authority.
“(7A) For the purpose of determining whether a preliminary notice must or may be served under this section in respect of a child, the local authority—(a) must consider the settings where the child is being educated that the local authority knows about and where the child lives, and(b) may request the child’s parent on whom the preliminary notice would be served to allow the local authority to visit the child inside any of the homes in which the child lives.(7B) If a request under subsection (7A)(b) is refused by the person to whom it is made, the local authority must consider that to be a relevant factor in determining whether to serve a preliminary notice.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would add to section 436H (inserted by clause 33) provision equivalent to section 436I(3) (inserted by clause 33) to enable the local authority to consider the child’s home and education settings and request a home visit to help determine whether to serve a preliminary notice under section 436H.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also cover action taken by the local authority under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 during the period of 5 years prior to the date on which the school attendance order would be made.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment of clause 32 at page 58, lines 22 to 27 following which not all education settings will be captured on the register so local authorities should not be obliged to consider all settings when making a decision to serve a school attendance order.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would also cover action taken by the local authority under section 47(8) of the Children Act 1989 during the period of 5 years prior to the date on which the school attendance order was made.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 34, page 81, line 39.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that local authorities have regard to guidance when exercising functions relating to the withdrawal of children from school.
“(fa) an institution—(i) that is only providing religious instruction or guidance,(ii) where parents or guardians of attendees have registered at their Local Authority that they provide suitable out-of-school education separate from or in addition to any attendance at the institution, and(iii) where the institution demonstrates to the Local Authority that it provides the required safeguarding measures;”Member's explanatory statement
This Amendment seeks to mitigate the adverse impact on institutions providing religious instruction, but not wider or general education, as identified in the Equality Impact Statement.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, this amendment is a repeat of one that I tabled in Committee, to which my right reverend friend the Bishop of Oxford spoke in my absence. I am deeply grateful to him, and to the noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Marks of Hale, who have added their names to it on Report.
My concerns with the Bill in its current form relate to those noted in the equality impact assessment, which singled out and named the particular issues that might arise for the Haredi Jewish community. As a Lord spiritual, I see my role as including speaking out when members of another religious community’s beliefs and practices are at stake. Among several groups within Judaism, the practice for boys—it is just boys we are talking about here—during their teenage years after their bar mitzvahs, is a combination of home schooling alongside religious instruction, the latter being provided by a yeshiva. At present, yeshivas are not treated as educational institutions, but the Bill makes it likely that they will be in future.
We need to reflect that we are legislating at a time when, after 7 October 2023, Jewish communities here in the UK, and in many other parts of the world, feel particularly threatened and vulnerable. The steep rise in antisemitic crimes is making some people I know who have been long committed to Britain wonder whether they are still welcome and safe in the UK. New laws that threaten their long-standing traditions simply play into that fear. The Jewish community—I went to school among Jewish boys—is a precious and vital constituent of British life. I sincerely believe that we must make every possible effort to allay their fears.
In working on this amendment, I have become more aware than ever that there are different voices and practices, even among the ultra-Orthodox communities. I do not pretend to speak for all of them, but those I have met with have given me assurances. For example, they have no problem with the institutions that their boys attend being in scope for safeguarding oversight and inspection. I am assured that the theology of these groups means that those who study their faith at a yeshiva are not being radicalised and are not drawn to political extremism. Indeed, the very opposite is true: they are members of a deeply law-abiding community. Many who come through this combination of home schooling and religious instruction emerge as excellent citizens, well equipped to flourish in British society and to become entrepreneurs, business leaders and assets to our community.
I am grateful for the conversations that I and noble colleagues, including the noble Lord, Lord Lucas—it is good to see him looking fully recovered after his surgery before Christmas—have had with civil servants and Ministers since Committee. That has significantly cleared the ground and resolved a number of issues along the way. These conversations have explored considerable detail. Some were about when exactly boys are expected to attend a yeshiva, during what would otherwise be normal Monday to Friday school hours. Others were about what precisely an institution that comes under the regime set out in the Bill will be required to include in its teaching and work. I am grateful for the assurances we have received that there is no intention to require such bodies, which are not equipped for it, to comply with the national curriculum.
Some of the groups I have met or corresponded with are concerned that, if a carve-out is not in the Bill, there are risks that secondary legislation will not provide sufficient assurance. They fear that a future Secretary of State would be free to make regulations that would, in effect, outlaw their way of life. I have listened carefully to those concerns; I understand their fears—my amendment would allay them.
However, it is the very complexity of the issues that has led me to conclude that these matters may be better dealt with through a period of careful consultation with those affected, prior to regulations being laid. To that extent, I have several questions for the Minister—I sent them to her yesterday—that I hope she will be able to answer in responding to this debate. Subject to that, I expect to be able to withdraw my amendment, as I have come to think that getting the regulation right on these matters of detail may be the better way.
First, can she assure the House that there will be ample time for consultation ahead of any regulations being issued, and that the groups referred to in the equality impact statement—of whom I have spoken this evening—will be engaged with, listened to and heard?
Secondly, can she affirm that the Bill does not require the same regulations to be applied to all institutions that fall under its remit? What may be appropriate for an acting college might be very different for a yeshiva. If that is correct, can the Minister assure us that the avenue of bespoke arrangements for particular classes of institution will be fully and openly considered and explored?
Thirdly, can she confirm that regulations should be based more on the whole lifestyle of the children involved, rather than being narrowly focused on particular times of day and days of the week? These divisions do not always carry the same status in some of our minority communities. The boys I am speaking of are not allowed on social media or on the kind of devices that while away the time of many of our teenagers.
Finally, will she agree with me that due attention must be given in any regulations to the teachings of faith communities regarding sensitive matters, such as relationships and sex education, so that young people are equipped to live in a pluralist society, without being told that their faiths and beliefs are wrong or somehow not British? I beg to move.
Lord Marks of Hale (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 175A. The Government and the Secretary of State for Education in particular have rightly been vocal in confronting antisemitism in education, but that commitment must extend beyond condemning violence or bans towards Jews. The Government cannot condemn violence and bans against Jewish people and then ban or close down their faith institutions.
The Government make no secret of the fact that Clause 37 consciously seeks to close down or entirely alter yeshivas. In their analysis of the Bill since its launch, the only faith community they ever mention is the strictly Orthodox Jewish one. The Bill leaves no lawful space for long-established religious institutions, which provide only religious instruction and operate alongside registered home education.
Yeshivas are safe and safeguarded institutions. They are not schools. They do not provide academic education and cannot be turned into schools without destroying their religious purpose. They exist to inculcate a lived faith. That some noble Lords may raise an eyebrow at that purpose says more about the distance of our own society from faith traditions than about the yeshivas themselves.
Alongside attending yeshivas, these boys are home-schooled. That home education is serious and improving. I have seen their new communal platforms personally, and they are now in active use.
The amendment before the House is narrow and proportionate. It ensures the continued safeguarding of yeshivas; requires registered home education, regulated, of course, by the local authority; and prevents the misclassification of religious institutions. In short, it allows the Government to achieve their aims of maintaining child welfare and education while recognising the lawful set-up of the Haredi Jewish community.
Report is the final opportunity to correct this in primary legislation. To use biblical imagery, the Government’s heart and lips must be aligned. The Haredi Jewish community and its yeshivas must continue to flourish, their children safe and home-schooled. The amendment is the only way that this can happen.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak against Amendment 175A. It is tabled in the same way as it was in Committee, but I accept that it was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford rather than the right reverend Prelate Bishop of Manchester who spoke to it on that occasion. I do not want to rehearse all those arguments again. It was a good debate, so I will perhaps sum them up and express a few further points.
The Bill is not trying to abolish yeshivas; that is not the intent of the legislation. I join both speakers so far in saying that I cherish and welcome the fact that we are a country that values education for all children and allows people of all faiths to reflect that faith in their own education. I have, sometimes at my own political expense, defended the state system, which has Roman Catholic schools, Church of England schools and many other schools. Politically, there are many people who think that we ought to not have faith schools at all. I have always defended them, because that is an important tenet of a free society, and I value the contribution they make to our lives.
I feel the same about people of any faith. This is not about the Orthodox Jewish faith. The amendment could be used by people of any faith to start a school and have 10 hours a day of religious instruction and home education in the evening. That point is very clear.
However, I am opposed to the way some faiths are organising their education at the moment. Without rehearsing the arguments, it comes down quite simply to this: if a child, maybe under 11, is in a yeshiva or any other school—but the yeshiva has been the one that has been mentioned—from 8 am to 6 pm, I do not believe that they can be home educated effectively in the evening. I do not think that is what we are about. If we take faith out of that and think of the needs of the child, we cherish our differences, but we are only a cohesive society if we cherish the things that we hold together.
One of the “samenesses” of our society is that we believe in the right of a child to have a broad and balanced education. I do not see how, in this structure, with yeshiva from 8 am to 6 pm and only religious education, sometimes not in the English language, then home education from 6 pm onwards, we are delivering that to those children. It is as simple as that. I have met people who have been educated in the yeshiva movement. They would not describe it as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester described it. It is the same as any other school. There are people who like it, people who do not like it, people who say it has served them well, people who it has not served well. It is as simple as that. Let us not go down this line because we think it is one form of education that everybody cherishes and wants to preserve. There is as much of a difference of opinion in this as there is in anything else.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I do not read this amendment in the same way as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, does, but I will come to that. I start with renewed thanks to the Minister for the time that she and her officials have given to me and thanks to the right reverend Prelate for tabling this amendment.
This Bill exemplifies how we are setting clear expectations of the standards that we should set for people who choose to educate their children outside the school system. We should not be ashamed of that. This is an honourable and right thing to do. My main answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, is that, if they are not achieving home education, they are in trouble. There must be home education which is up to the standard we think it should be. If not, it will be in contravention of this Bill.
However, that does not appear to be the problem, at least with the Haredi communities that I have been in correspondence with. We have principles—and they have principles—about how children should be educated. The Prime Minister and others in government have made much of their respect and care for our Jewish communities. It would not be consistent with those statements to tip hundreds of families within the Haredi community into conflict with the state and courts without doing our best to reconcile their views on education and ours.
However, tipping them into conflict is what this Bill in its raw form does, as the Government’s own impact statement accepts. The Haredi community, for all the differences between its ancient traditions and our secular ways, is entirely worthy of our care and respect. It is law-abiding. It makes a positive contribution to our economy. Its children lead productive and fulfilling lives. There is clearly a lot of good going on.
We should therefore step back from the punitive approach that this Bill allows for and enter a process of building a mutual understanding. What does Haredi education achieve in practice? What exactly are their religious red lines? What aspects of Haredi education do we want to see improved? What is the best way of getting that? We have clearly put the Haredi community, or substantial parts of it, in a state of fear. The Government are pushing through this Bill unamended, asking the Haredi community to trust in the department’s good will to devise regulations it will be able to work with. This surely is the time for a clear statement from the Minister that the Government are committed to reaching an outcome that allows both sets of principles to be observed.
I understood from the officials we met that yeshivas to be regulated as IEIs under this Bill are not to be expected to provide the whole of a child’s education. This is most welcome and a cornerstone of eventual agreement. Yeshivas provide religious education; their children’s general education is provided through the elective home education system and should be held to the same standards as we are holding all elective home education to. I hope the Minister will be able to confirm that understanding.
Discussion will throw up some areas of fundamental agreement, such as safeguarding, where the focus will be on getting the mechanisms right, and other areas of deep disagreement. We should be determined to resolve those disagreements. My limited experience of listening to the Haredi community and my long experience of listening to the DfE gives me a lot of confidence that we will see a positive outcome for both parties. We should set a reasonable timescale for this process. A couple of years, as discussed with officials at our most recent meeting, will be a period long enough not to cramp discussion and short enough for it to be clear that those discussions must reach a conclusion. We should involve all the main strands of Haredi thought. The DfE has been here before in successfully setting up an elective home education working group in an environment of strong and diverse opinions. Such a working group would build confidence within the Haredi community that it was heard and understood. A Minister should be involved, as some of the questions to be resolved clearly require the application of ministerial judgment.
We should understand the depth of our misunderstandings. We find it hard, as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, illustrated, to believe that children will have the energy and focus for a good general education if the school day is full of religious studies. But as the right reverend Prelate said, they do not return home to their devices, computer games and all the other things that distract our children; they lead a much more focused life—they clearly do. If you look at the outcomes, the people they grow up to be, they clearly do absorb, very effectively, a good, broad general education. If we express our wishes in terms of the results we desire, not in terms of structures created for other purposes, I believe that we will build mutual understanding and trust. We should listen to the Haredi community’s exposition of its principles and explore how those principles can be upheld, at the same time as we uphold ours. I very much hope that the Minister will, in her reply, commit her Government to such a course.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, faith schools play an important part in our country’s education and are to be valued, but as the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, rightly said, we also believe that all children should have access to a broad and balanced curriculum. If we accommodate changes for one religious faith group, that should be available to any faith group or religious group that wants the same. We have, as a country, probably created one of the most successful multicultural, multifaith communities in the world. We should cherish that, but we should also be aware of the dangers that potentially lie ahead.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I too thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for tabling this amendment again. As the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, said, we had a fervent debate in Committee, where the case was made for the precious nature of Haredi traditions but also for the importance of avoiding a two-tier system of education; and that the reality for some young men was that they felt their experience at a yeshiva had been deeply damaging.
My noble friend Lord Lucas suggested that the department pick a time period to resolve these issues; that seems a very constructive suggestion. It feels as though this amendment has the elements in it for a way through this very long-running debate, given that it includes a commitment both to suitable out-of-school education and to safeguarding issues being addressed. I acknowledge the deep concerns that were expressed in Committee and I hope very much that the Minister finds a way through this, not least for the Haredi community, who are obviously deeply anxious about it.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As other noble Lords have done, I first thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for bringing forward Amendment 175A. Of course, this amendment was previously tabled in Committee and debated extensively then. For reasons of time, I will not repeat that debate.
However, I agree with my noble friend Lady Morris that support for this clause is absolutely not a failure to recognise the significance of faith-based education across a range of faiths in our country. My noble friend is right, and she has championed and supported this, even in the face of opposition. I assure the Haredi community that it is neither a denigration of their faith nor of the way in which they wish to express it in a plural England, where I very much hope they feel able to be, and remain, a full part of our community.
It may assist the House if I clarify the purpose and effect of Clause 37 and the Government’s general approach in this area. In so doing, I will attempt to answer the questions raised by the right reverend Prelate. Clause 37 starts from the position that, if a setting is providing full-time education to children of compulsory school age, it should be regulated and subject to oversight. I trust that there is broad support across the House for this principle. Clause 37 therefore extends to more settings the regulatory regime found in Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Education and Skills Act 2008.
I reiterate that it is categorically not the Government’s intention to close down yeshivas. This is the same ready-made, flexible and effective system of regulation that independent schools have been able to operate within for many years, including those with a primary faith ethos. Let me be clear: there is nothing in this clause that, in itself, requires impacted settings to become schools or to operate identically to other settings already regulated by this regime. What the clause does do, in broad terms, is subject impacted full-time settings to a regime of registration and the need to comply with prescribed standards and inspection against those standards. While people running educational settings should already have an idea of whether they provide a full-time education, based on an ordinary understanding of those words, the Government will produce guidance so that it is clear whether a setting is being brought into regulation by this measure.
In addition, the right reverend Prelate asked for confirmation that the regulatory regime found in the 2008 Act permits different standards to be prescribed for different types of setting. I can confirm that this is the case and that Ministers have not yet decided which standards would be prescribed. Any decision will only follow extensive engagement and consultation. This is likely to take a minimum of several months and will take into account all relevant views, including those concerning the appropriateness of teaching relationships and sex education in regulated settings.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I am grateful to all who have taken part. I will not delay us long. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, that there have to be some limits to what a faith community can do. I believe we can achieve that if we work hard over the next few months on how these kinds of institutions are going to be regulated. We can make sure we are providing space for bona fide organisations that are clearly having the outcome of producing wholesome young people without opening the floodgates to all sorts of negative patterns of upbringing that we might wish to be wary of. I am hugely grateful for the reassurances received and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment and my amendment to clause 40 at page 99, line 12, would require an application to register an independent educational institution to include just the address and not the description of buildings where students are routinely provided with education, meals or accommodation.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We have moved slightly faster than I expected us to move, which I am sure is greatly welcomed by most Members of your Lordships’ House. I begin with the group of amendments concerning Clause 40. Government Amendments 176 to 183 and 185 principally concern the Bill’s provisions on the material change regime, which governs the type of change that independent schools require Secretary of State approval to make.
When the Bill was first published, concern was raised that minor or secondary changes, such as bike sheds or classroom conversions, would be unnecessarily captured if changes of buildings at a school’s already registered address were treated as material changes. The Government have listened to these concerns and the amendments now make clear that building changes at a school’s registered address do not require material change approval. Importantly, the same principle applies to any additional addresses that the department registers after approving a change of building. Further changes of building at these addresses will not be treated as material changes.
These amendments take a proportionate approach. They reflect that a registered school making use of new or unfamiliar addresses may be placing pupils at higher risk of harm. Under these changes, the focus will be on any addresses beyond the school’s registered address and any additional addresses registered following an approved change of buildings where there is no prior assurance that standards are met. In addition, these amendments clarify that only changes to how an institution providing special education is specially organised constitute a material change and require ministerial approval. Actions taken solely to meet an individual pupil’s needs do not constitute a material change.
The Government have worked closely with interested parties to ensure that the original policy intent is properly captured. It is right that, where independent schools make changes to their operations that may place children at risk of harm, the Secretary of State is made aware of that and is given assurance that these changes are safe. That is an important principle, and these amendments are a sensible balancing act between strengthening oversight and avoiding unnecessary bureaucracy.
I turn to Amendment 184. In Committee there was broad support for Clause 43, which aims to strengthen Ofsted’s powers to investigate suspected illegal, unregistered independent schools and registered schools operating unlawfully. These additional powers have been drawn with an awareness that the powers currently available to Ofsted in Section 97 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 are inadequate to identify suspected criminal behaviour. Therefore, when drawing up Clause 43, the Government listened closely to the chief inspector to make sure that these powers can be put into operation.
The amendment is aimed at giving greater confidence to the chief inspector when operating under these new powers. It is the Government’s experience that demonstrating offences in this space relies heavily on gathering documentary evidence. Some of that evidence may, under ordinary circumstances, be considered confidential or otherwise fall within existing legislative restrictions. The amendment therefore facilitates the chief inspector’s access to such information when acting under the authority of a warrant, where that is relevant to deciding whether a relevant offence is being or has been committed. It further ensures that independent judicial oversight, in the form of a warrant, is sought before such documents are inspected, copied or, when necessary, seized in reliance on these powers. This approach strikes the right balance between protecting the rights of the individual and ensuring that the chief inspector is able to properly inspect potentially dangerous settings. I beg to move.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I have a quick question for the Minister on Amendment 184, which she described towards the end of her speech. I agree with the purpose of this and most of the details, but I am not quite sure what is meant by “excluded material” or “special procedure material”. Is that anything to do with data protection? If it is an unregistered school, would the inspector be able to go in and seize, copy or have access to a register or pupil progress file without having to go and get a warrant? If they gain access and then have to go and get a warrant before they can see the register or the pupil progress information, they are not going to be able to do their job effectively—but that hangs on what is meant by “special procedure material” and “excluded material”. Does that include things such as school registers?
Lord Storey (LD)
Again, the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has taken the words out of my mouth. This is an issue that I have felt strongly about for a number of years. I know from talking to Ofsted that one of the barriers has always been getting the evidence. I presume that the Minister has had detailed discussions with Ofsted and that, as a result, this wording fulfils what needs to be done. I hope the Minister will confirm that.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for listening to the concerns that we raised on this side, both in the other place and in your Lordships’ House, about the scope of Clause 40. We feel that it is much improved and are grateful to the Government for listening.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
Perhaps I could come back to my noble friend Lady Morris on the details of that particular question; I am sorry that I cannot respond to it now.
I welcome the welcome provided to the Government’s amendments in this group. I also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Storey, that we have had extensive discussions with Ofsted about the provisions we are proposing here to make sure they enable Ofsted to do what this Bill is strengthening its ability to do.
Lord Storey (LD)
When the Minister gets back to her noble friend, could she also copy us in with that information? It would be quite useful to understand as well.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I will, as I think is normal when I write to noble Lords about issues that have come up in the debates, copy in anybody that fancies it and probably place a copy in the Library as well for good measure.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(3ZA) For the purposes of subsection (3)(ea)—(a) “building” means any—(i) building,(ii) part of a building,(iii) permanent outdoor structure, or(iv) part of a permanent outdoor structure,which is wholly or mainly enclosed;(b) a building is made available “for student use” by an institution if students at the institution are routinely present in the building—(i) to be provided with meals or accommodation by the institution, or(ii) to be provided with education by the institution and, while the education is being provided, the building is controlled by the institution.”Member's explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement to my amendment to clause 40 at page 99, line 8.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would simplify the provision made by clause 40(3).
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify that a material change includes a change to the registered address of an institution.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would require the proprietor of an independent educational institution to seek approval to change the buildings where students are routinely provided with education, meals or accommodation by the institution.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would align the text to be inserted into section 101 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 with existing text in sections 98 and 101 of that Act.
“(2B) Subsection (2)(g) does not include a change where—(a) the change is a building ceasing to be made available for student use,(b) the change is an excluded building being made available for student use, or(c) the change is reasonably expected by the proprietor to persist for a period of less than six months beginning with the day on which the change is made.(2C) A building is an “excluded building” if—(a) it is at the registered address of an independent educational institution, or(b) it is at a further address included in the register—(i) in accordance with section 99(5)(c), or (ii) following approval under this Chapter of a material change falling within subsection (2)(g).(2D) A change within subsection (2B)(c) becomes a material change if, at the beginning of the first day after the end of the six month period mentioned in that provision, it persists.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would limit the requirement imposed by my amendment to clause 40 at page 100, line 1, by excluding certain kinds of changes and buildings from scope.
“(10A) In section 138 (interpretation), after subsection (2) insert—“(3) A reference in this Chapter to the registered address of an independent educational institution—(a) is a reference to the address included in the register in accordance with section 99(5)(a) or, where a change of that address is approved under this Chapter (see section 101(2)(b)), the new address;(b) is not a reference to any further addresses related to the institution and included in the register—(i) in accordance with section 99(5)(c), or(ii) following approval under this Chapter of a material change falling within section 101(2)(g).””Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would clarify the meaning of “registered address of an independent educational institution” in the Education and Skills Act 2008 to reflect that various addresses used by an institution may be recorded in the register.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(a) material that is excluded material within the meaning of section 11(1)(a) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984;(b) material that is special procedure material within the meaning of section 14(2) of that Act.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would grant the Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills power to seize, inspect or take copies of certain documents for the purpose of investigating offences under the Education and Skills Act 2008.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 40 at page 102, line 5.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 45, page 111, lines 3 to 8.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on my amendment to clause 45, page 111, lines 29 to 34.
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove provision no longer needed because of the protection provided by the new general data protection override in section 183A of the Data Protection Act 2018, inserted by section 106(2) of the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and which came into force on 20 August 2025.
Baroness Barran
Member's explanatory statement
This amendment would remove the ability of the TRA to investigate complaints before a teacher began their teaching career or after they have ended their teaching career.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, the issue of complaints against teachers is changing considerably, particularly with the advent of social media and AI, which can be used to identify and draft lengthy complaints which schools have to respond to. I understand that up to one in five members of the teaching workforce are currently facing a complaint, rising to one in three of our head teachers. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, for signing Amendment 190 in my name and to the National Education Union for its support.
I am also grateful to the Minister for Schools, the honourable Member from Camden, for our conversation last week. The original draft of my speech said that I was very hopeful that, when the Minister came to close she would accept the amendment, but I have to say I was very disappointed by the reply that I received from the Minister for Schools today, in which—and I paraphrase —she said that she accepted the concerns that the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, and I had raised when we met her but she stressed it was not the Government’s intention to do any of those bad things; it was to address things such as teachers who take a year’s sabbatical and then come back and all of this would be addressed through regulations. I feel like a cracked record in saying that we cannot legislate just for this Government and this Minister’s intentions. We can absolutely imagine that this is the kind of area that could become very politicised in future.
Our basic argument is that our amendment would mean that complaints could not be brought in relation to a teacher’s behaviour before they began teaching and after they finished. The idea that you can bring a standard of professional conduct to someone when they are not acting in the profession is stretching things. Let us just imagine if Ministers were held to a Ministerial Code before and after their tenure; they obviously, I think we would agree, arguably wield greater power and influence, although I admit that at times it does not always feel like that.
The other thing is that our expectations, both of teachers and of standards in society, change over time, and judging historic behaviour against today’s professional standards risks unfair hindsight and inconsistency, particularly where the conduct was lawful or accepted at the time. Teachers arguably have some of the highest professional standards around. They are held to them 24/7, 365 days a year when they are a teacher, let alone before they even become one and after they leave.
From a safeguarding perspective, surely the DBS enhanced checks should be sufficient. They may not be perfect, but we need to have some line for where these different regimes begin and end.
Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendments 223 to 226, and your Lordships’ House will remember that we debated the issue in these amendments in June of last year. The amendments have two aims: to provide parents with an effective means of escalating a formal complaint about a school when they are not satisfied with the school’s response, and to introduce a mechanism for better enforcing the legal duties of schools in the provision of education, for example over political impartiality. Proposing these amendments allows for a debate that draws attention to breaches of education law, the failure of the DfE to enforce it or to support concerned parents and the disempowering of parents in the education of their children.
At present, there is little or no enforcement of significant parts of education law: first, because the school inspector at Ofsted does not consider compliance with education law per se. When challenged about rating schools hitherto as outstanding when they were clearly in breach of their legal duties, Ofsted has stated that there are many different obligations and that it is not a compliance-driven inspectorate. Inspectors are teachers by profession, so they may not always be equipped to make judgments over legal compliance.
Secondly, parents could, in theory, launch a judicial review against their child’s school, but the significant costs of such legal action and the damage it could do to the parents’ relationships with their child’s school are significant factors. Parents can use the school’s internal complaints process, and, at a state-funded school, if they remain dissatisfied, they can escalate their complaint to the DfE. However, there are examples of extremely poor handling of complaints by the department. The department occasionally appears to go to considerable lengths to evade making any decision and parents can literally be waiting years after they first submitted their complaint to the school before they receive a response, by which time their child may well have moved on to another school.
Consequently, failure to comply with some education laws is widespread and schools do not always take them seriously. It is common for teachers and governors not to know what education law requires, demonstrating that it is largely irrelevant in practice. There are exceptions; for example, inspectors will consider aspects of a school’s work on safeguarding, and schools are consequently more likely to closely follow the statutory safeguarding guidance, Keeping Children Safe in Education—although even here there have been concerns about schools’ practice.
The amendments would introduce a right for parents to appeal complaints to the First-tier Tribunal, rather than to the DfE, if they have completed the internal school process and remain dissatisfied. The internal school process usually has at least two formal stages. Parents would retain their ability to escalate a complaint to the DfE. The amendments would work by inserting new clauses into existing education Acts: the Education Act 2002, for local-authority maintained schools; the Education and Skills Act 2008, for independent educational institutions, including academies; and the Education Act 1996, for non-maintained special schools. Finally, Amendment 226 would allow for consequential amendments to be made.
As the hour is late, I will not go into detail on the amendments, but I will finish by explaining their impact. To make use of these provisions, parents would need to specify in their complaint the duty that they are concerned the school is breaching. There would also be some costs involved. Not all parents and complaints will be able to make use of these provisions. However, in those situations, parents would be no worse off, as they would still have their current ability to escalate to the DfE. The general effect, however, would be to increase awareness, among both parents and schools, of the school’s legal obligations. An increasingly clear focus on schools’ obligations may lead to greater objectivity in parental complaints and help reduce spurious complaints.
Whereas in the past schools have sometimes withheld information from parents on what they teach, the duty of disclosure would compel them to provide this information if an appeal to the tribunal was pursued, preventing secretive approaches to what children are taught about sometimes sensitive subjects. As tribunal judgments start to be issued, teachers and governors would become more aware of the legal requirements that they are under and take them more seriously, improving compliance and potentially reducing parental complaints in the long run. Politically sensitive judgments —for example, on whether particular teaching about gender identity is a breach of schools’ duty of political impartiality—would pass from the Secretary of State and the department to the tribunal, which would have a greater ability to prioritise a dispassionate consideration of the legal questions over political considerations. The Secretary of State and the department would also benefit, in that their policy decisions that lead to changes in schools’ legal obligations, or changes in statutory guidance to which those schools are legally required to have regard, would be given better effect in schools.
Although judgments of the tribunal at first tier do not set a binding precedent, unlike the decisions at upper tier, they would nevertheless build up a body of legal opinion on the application of education law that would be a valuable reference for governors, teachers and parents. If tribunal decisions repeatedly support bad practice, this would provide clear evidence to Parliament of the need for changes to education law. This may help cut through the claims and counterclaims about whether there are problems in schools’ teaching in areas such as RSE, providing a more objective basis for debate and evidence-based policy. For those reasons, I am happy to commend the four amendments tabled in my name.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 191 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Knight, to which I have added my name. In doing so, I declare my interest as honorary president of COBIS. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Knight, is unable to be here today, but I am grateful to him for sharing recent correspondence he has had with the Minister on this matter.
It is critical that we act to improve the safeguarding arrangements between schools here in England and international schools overseas. The Safeguarding Alliance has supplied a couple of very concerning examples of recent cases where the system has clearly failed. In one international school, sexually explicit material was discovered on a school-owned computer during recent IT maintenance. A subsequent investigation identified multiple videos showing a member of staff livestreaming and recording explicit content which was stored within their user account. The content was assessed as being of such an extreme nature that the local UK embassy declined to view or handle the material. A referral was made to the Teaching Regulation Agency, but the TRA confirmed that the matter fell outside its jurisdiction. The member of staff is now working in another country and able to return to teach here undetected.
In a second example, a nursery teacher was discovered by a parent in the act of sexually abusing a child within the school setting. The parent immediately reported the incident to the school’s senior leadership team. The school made an immediate referral to the relevant local authorities and attempted to report the incident to the TRA, but as the school was based overseas, the TRA was unable to accept or process the referral. The school had no clear alternative reporting or regulatory pathway for international safeguarding concerns involving a UK-regulated teacher. The alleged perpetrator subsequently left the setting, and their current whereabouts remain unknown.
For this reason, Clause 46 is very welcome, in that it extends the jurisdiction of the TRA to those who have previously worked in England. It will give much-needed assurance to employers as teachers return from overseas. However, there remains a narrow but significant gap: where an individual who is qualified to teach in England through IQTS has completed induction in a British school overseas but has never taught in England, there is currently no route for serious misconduct overseas to be reported to the TRA. As the Minister has agreed in correspondence, this covers a very small number of teachers, but this loophole remains a risk to children if it is not closed.
The substantive reason for the Government resisting this amendment was set out in a letter which the noble Lord, Lord Knight, received last night. In essence, it argued that the TRA cannot practically be expected to investigate such incidents overseas. Yet this is precisely what it will have to do with incidents in relation to Clause 46. I want to stress on behalf of both me and the noble Lord, Lord Knight, that this amendment does not seek to turn the TRA into a global regulator or require the Secretary of State to investigate all misconduct overseas. It is tightly drawn, applying only to those who are qualified to teach in England and who may in due course seek employment in our schools.
Once Clause 47 requires all schools to employ qualified teachers and Clause 46 brings those who have previously worked in England within scope, this group is all that remains. It is a small cohort, but without this change, an individual who commits serious misconduct overseas may move on, secure a fresh reference and subsequently take up a post in England.
Safeguarding training reminds us that safeguarding is everyone’s responsibility; it does not stop at national borders and concerns must be reported wherever there is a risk to children. This amendment is pursued in exactly that spirit, and I hope that the Minister will once again reflect on whether this narrow extension could be accommodated to deliver the outcome that I know we all seek.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I am also grateful to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, and to speak to Amendment 191A in my name. During the debates on the Employment Rights Bill, Peers on this side of the Chamber welcomed the Government’s commitment to a review of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999. However, it is clear that such a review will not necessarily be economy-wide in scope.
What it cannot easily do is address the specific position of teachers and school staff, who work in one of the most highly regulated and safeguarding-intensive environments in the labour market. For teachers, disciplinary and grievance processes are not exceptional; they are a structural feature of the profession. Safeguarding law rightly requires that every allegation be taken seriously and investigated, even when later it proves unfounded. As a result, teachers and school leaders are far more likely than most workers to experience formal proceedings during their career.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, I have Amendment 243D, which is unchanged from the amendment that I tabled in Committee. It is late and I shall be brief. We are in a world where we all have a much greater propensity to complain in great numbers and are doing so very frequently. AI is making it easy to complain at great length, with minimal effort, and service providers of all kinds are quite simply drowning in workload. Talk to any head teacher and you will hear this.
I propose streamlining the current messy patchwork of statutory provisions to create a single streamlined model in which complaints will be triaged and considered only by the most relevant body, with information available to others when necessary. I believe that this would improve schools’ capacity to respond to serious concerns.
The Minister’s response was that the issue was being considered by the Improving Education Together group of unions and other stakeholders, with which the Government are committed to co-developing policy design and implementation. Indeed, this consideration seems to have happened, because guidance was recently published, both for parents by DfE and for schools by Parentkind. The content is entirely sensible, but it does not address the major structural problem: that a minority of parents can and do spray complaints at every conceivably relevant entity, including Ofsted, DfE, the Teaching Regulation Agency, as well as school governors and MATs or local authorities. A proportion of parents do not desist, even when they get fair and reasonable responses, and these volumes are drowning out the serious complaints that absolutely need attention. And despite this guidance, there are still those different legal frameworks and best practice guidelines for maintained schools and academies, which continues to create confusion.
I think schools will have hoped for greater acknowledgement of the scale of the issue and the impact it is having both on staff well-being and more generally on school capacity to respond, especially in relation to AI-generated complaints. I think they will now be hoping that the schools White Paper will provide for root and branch review of the system, including a co-ordinated system to triage complaints, such as this amendment would provide for, and perhaps also some powers for school leaders to act where there is unreasonable behaviour that goes beyond what is contemplated in this amendment. With apologies to my noble friend Lord Jackson, I think that rationalising the current problems to release the capacity that needs to be there for serious complaints is perhaps more likely to help than adding an additional layer. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will be able to reassure me that the Government intend to go beyond mere advice as to how all parties can use the current legal framework better.
Finally, Amendments 190 and 191A are also important in establishing some important principles of fairness for school staff as well as for parents, and Amendment 191 would close a small but significant loophole.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak very briefly to Amendment 191A, to which I would have added my name had I been slightly more organised. I have been a member of teaching unions in the past but I am not any longer. Many teachers are not members of a union. These are personal decisions, whether cost or philosophical. Trade unions play an important role in the workplace, but not being a member should not put you at a disadvantage when facing a formal allegation. It is all very well bringing a colleague along but, apart from the moral support, they might not be much help.
Doctors and dentists are permitted to be accompanied at disciplinary hearings by representatives from professional defence organisations under the NHS’s maintaining high professional standards framework. This has not undermined trade unions or weakened safeguarding: it has simply ensured that highly scrutinised professionals are not left unsupported at critical moments and has helped to ensure that due process has been followed. Teachers and school staff operate under comparable levels of public scrutiny and regulatory oversight. Amendment 191A is a modest, sensible step that reflects the reality and promotes fairness and consistency in how disciplinary processes are conducted. It does not even go so far as arrangements in medicine but is a step in the right direction and I strongly support it.
Amendment 243D, to which I did actually add my name, is very simple. I know from first-hand experience how complicated school complaints can be, with different complaints being sent to different organisations, often duplicated. They could be going to DfE, Ofsted, TRA, the school and the LEA. This is a very simple, overdue and badly needed amendment.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, it was a pleasure to listen to the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, which was about a modest change to the remit of the TRA. However, I support Amendment 190, to which I have added my name, precisely not to extend the TRA’s remit in two particular ways—that the TRA should be allowed to consider, as the noble Baroness opposite said, complaints about behaviour before someone becomes a qualified and practising teacher, and that it should be allowed to consider complaints after someone has stopped teaching.
I do not know whether there is any confusion in the minds of anyone in the Government. Clearly, if someone interrupts their teaching and then wants to come back to it, that is a different matter. If we are talking about people who have permanently left teaching, though, it seems unreasonable for the TRA to proceed. With regard to people against whom the TRA might seek to proceed before they have started teaching, the National Education Union says:
“Once the door is opened to pre-career conduct, it becomes very difficult to draw principled boundaries. How far back should investigations reach? Should conduct as a teenager or student be included? What weight should be given to immaturity, context, or personal development?”
What about what both the noble Baroness opposite and I described in the meeting with Minister Gould, which I was very pleased to attend, as “youthful high jinks”, which in no way reaches any kind of criminality but someone might seek to complain about?
There is a real problem here. Even Minister Gould said that she could see we were saying that these proposals seemed to be too much of a broad brush, and that is indeed my concern. Teachers are rightly held to very high standards and, although we heard some egregious examples of bad behaviour from teachers, in general the vast majority not only are held to high standards but meet and exceed them. Therefore, to create the pressure of the possibility that someone could complain about pre-career conduct or post-retirement conduct seems to be an unnecessary burden to put on both the teaching profession and the TRA, which is not currently able to manage the workload it has, although that is not my prime consideration.
Noble Lords will have heard from the noble Baroness opposite that during the meeting we hoped that there might be some movement on this. Like her, I have now had the letter from Minister Gould, who says:
“I also want to assure you that we are committing to setting out in guidance a framework which makes clear the factors that will need to be considered before the TRA can proceed with an investigation … We will do this in consultation with the sector and unions in due course”.
As the noble Baroness opposite said, and as has been said from many corners of this Chamber on many occasions, setting out guidance in a framework is not the same as having something in the Bill. The NEU concludes:
“Even if guidance later seeks to limit this, primary legislation would authorise the power, and guidance alone cannot cure an overly broad statutory remit”.
It is with regret that I say that I think the Government have got it wrong on this. However, I am slightly pleased that there will be a consultation and I am sure that the sector and the unions will engage very vigorously in that. If this amendment is not accepted, I hope that this being in the Bill does not set the tone and imply that we think there is every reason to have open season on anyone who might become a teacher or once was a teacher.
Lord Lucas (Con)
My Lords, I am thoroughly in favour of Amendment 191A. I have been involved in that sort of situation a couple of times in my life. It makes an enormous difference for someone facing a perilous investigation to have someone beside them to make the points that make it clear that the school—or whichever organisation—has got it wrong. It is a very hard thing to do yourself; it is much easier if you have someone beside you to take that burden. I recommend that the Government pursue Amendment 191A.
I also very much hope the Government will pursue the amendment advocated by my noble friend Lady Spielman. We have to get the complaints system right. I had a go at this in Committee and got bounced by the Government consistently. It would really reduce the burdens on people dealing with complaints to have something that takes the weight off, has a really good triage system, is really good at explaining to people why their complaint is rubbish and nonsense and is equally good at making sure it gets to the right person with the right advice tagged to it. It would also increase the effectiveness of justified complaints. Parents taking to social media and having the police called on them is not the right way forward.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, this group of amendments concerns three distinct areas, which I will take in turn. Amendments 190 and 191 concern the jurisdiction of the Teaching Regulation Agency. Amendment 190 would remove the ability of the TRA to investigate alleged misconduct that occurred before an individual began their teaching career.
I understand the concern here may also be that Clause 46 permits the TRA to investigate those who at any time have been employed or engaged in teaching work and hold those responsible for their conduct at any time in their life. Given that this includes me, I can wholly understand noble Lords’ concerns.
At present, the teacher misconduct regime limits the TRA’s jurisdiction only to those who are currently employed or engaged in teaching work, or who were so employed or engaged when the referral was made. There are problems with this—it cannot be right. Clause 46 addresses this by extending the TRA’s jurisdiction to those who have at any time been employed or engaged in teaching work. Noble Lords can imagine that there could be times when somebody has very recently resigned, possibly with the idea of avoiding a referral to come, and is not able to be investigated. So there are circumstances where it would be appropriate to change the ability of the TRA to investigate.
Given what noble Lords have said today, despite the assurances that my honourable friend Georgia Gould was able to provide to noble Lords during the meeting they held with her, I can understand noble Lords’ concerns. Therefore, the department is not in the position of wanting to implement Clause 46 without having undertaken considerable further consultation, having considered the points that noble Lords have raised. I hope I can give that assurance this evening, and I will find a way to come back to noble Lords with how we intend to do that and some of the safeguards around the sorts of issues that noble Lords have identified this evening.
While Amendment 190 seeks to narrow the TRA’s jurisdiction, Amendment 191, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, says, seeks to extend the TRA’s jurisdiction. I understand the concern here that holders of iQTS may work in a school in England but previously have committed misconduct in a foreign country and that, as such, the TRA’s jurisdiction should be expanded to cover all holders of iQTS.
There are problems with this amendment, which have been outlined in the correspondence we have had with my noble friend Lord Knight. I thank him, and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for the approach they are taking to what is a clearly worrying problem. We would not want there to be a limit on restricting the ability of those who have committed the types of behaviours the noble Baroness has outlined to work in schools in the UK. There have been some important developments in the ability of both international and UK schools to check a teacher’s record. Once again, noble Lords have made a strong case, and while we cannot accept Amendment 191 for the technical reasons that were outlined in the correspondence, I undertake to continue discussions with the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, my noble friend Lord Knight and the Safeguarding Alliance to try and find a way through, because I recognise that there is an issue here.
I turn to the proposed new clause in Amendment 191A of the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, on opening up the right to accompaniment for school staff at disciplinary and grievance hearings. While I thank him and other noble Lords for their thoughts on this matter, I do not believe that this amendment is necessary. This issue, as others have said, was debated at some length during passage of the Employment Rights Bill. Following Third Reading, my noble friend Lord Collins set out the Government’s commitment to review in its entirety the functioning of Section 10 of the Employment Relations Act 1999, which includes provisions on who can be a companion and the right to be accompanied. As part of the review, we will engage with relevant and interested stakeholders and following its conclusion, we will publish our findings in Parliament. This House accepted the Government’s concession on this matter, and the amendment was withdrawn. We will, as the noble Lord asks, consider the implications of the review outcomes for the school workforce. I hope he agrees with the Government that it would be entirely inappropriate for the Department for Education to act unilaterally on this matter for school staff until the full review has taken place and reported. I hope, therefore, that he will not press his amendment.
Turning to the group of amendments relating to parental complaints and appeals, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jackson, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Spielman and Lady Barran, for tabling these amendments again. Amendments 223, 224, and 225 would, respectively, allow parents and carers of children in maintained schools, independent schools including academies, and non-maintained special schools to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 226 would allow for regulations to amend secondary legislation on the rules and procedures of the First-tier Tribunal. Amendment 243D seeks to introduce a central complaints system to handle school-related complaints in England, and for these complaints to be held in a central database accessible to the Department for Education and Ofsted.
My noble friend Lady Blake previously gave detail in Committee on the work we are doing to improve the school complaints system. I will not repeat that today, but I confirm that our aim remains to reduce the burden on schools and leaders, while also maintaining parents’ rights to raise concerns and have them properly considered. We will be providing more detail on this in the forthcoming schools White Paper, but on the role of the First-tier Tribunal, we still do not believe that introducing an additional layer of appeal to the general school complaints system is the right way to achieve our aim of reducing the burdens on schools. The First-tier Tribunal is already under significant pressure, and despite the investment of additional administrative and judicial resource, which has ensured the conclusion of more appeals, the rise in demand is nevertheless outstripping the increase in capacity at present. Expanding the remit of the tribunal would only lead to longer delays for families. We do not think it would be appropriate or proportionate to expand the First-tier Tribunal’s role to include general complaints about schools, but we recognise the concerns being raised in general. We are actively looking at how we can strengthen the independent element of the school complaints process, so that, where parents need to escalate their complaint, they are reassured that it is assessed fairly and objectively.
The noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, talked about the work the department has been doing with the charity Parentkind. As she pointed out, we have worked with the charity to develop the Parent Guide to School Complaints, which was published on 20 January. We are also exploring potential digital options for improving the system. This work involves user research and testing with the sector—including with parents, teachers and headteachers—to ensure that we get this right and that it works for everyone involved. This type of work takes time, of course, but I hope this offers assurance to noble Lords that we are considering this as part of our package of reforms that we will set out in the schools White Paper.
I hope I have addressed noble Lords’ concerns in responding to the amendments. I invite them not to press their amendments.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response. On Amendment 190, what I heard her say was that she would undertake not to implement Clause 46 without proper consultation. I urge her to look again with her colleagues at the wording of the clause, because while the Government’s intent is absolutely spot on, it is not what is said in the clause. If there is a way to do more, that would be even better.
I thank the Minister for her responses and for her openness to continue the conversation on Amendment 191. She almost repeated my noble friend’s words about simplification in the schools White Paper, so we look forward to seeing Amendment 243D back in new, official, government form. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment 190.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“(1) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proprietor of an Academy has breached a duty imposed by Academy arrangements, the Secretary of State may give the proprietor such directions as the Secretary of State considers appropriate to secure the proper performance of the duty.”Member's explanatory statement
This amendment limits the Secretary of State’s power to direct the proprietor of an Academy to cases where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proprietor has already breached a duty imposed by Academy arrangements.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, government amendments 192 and 193 would strengthen accountability in the academy sector and introduce trust-level inspection to ensure high standards across all trusts. Together, they respond to discussion and points raised in Committee and deliver a proportionate, effective framework for intervention and improvement.
Amendment 192 will narrow the scope of Clause 50, so that the Secretary of State may issue directions only where an academy proprietor has breached a duty imposed by its funding agreements. As stated in Committee, Clause 50 is an important lever for improving accountability in the academy sector. However, we have listened carefully to the concerns raised in this House and the other place about the breadth of the original clause, and we have acted to respond to those concerns and provide clarity. In particular, the amendment removes the anticipatory element of the power and confines its use to cases of actual breach, rather than where a breach is considered likely.
We want the use of directions to be clear, direct and proportionate. This government amendment will provide reassurance without weakening accountability, while maintaining the ability to act swiftly where standards are at risk. Academy trustees are also charity trustees, and we will engage with the Charity Commission, where appropriate, under our Memorandum of Understanding, prior to issuing a direction.
Government Amendment 193 will introduce Ofsted inspections of academy trusts and close a significant accountability gap. We have heard in debates the central role academy trusts play in our education system. Yet accountability has not kept pace with growth, despite decisions at trust level potentially having wide-reaching impacts on the quality of education and support that children receive in academies.
Inspection will provide independent, expert assessment of a trust’s strengths and areas for improvement, supporting a self-improving system and identifying where intervention is needed. This delivers on the manifesto commitment and responds to calls made across the House in Committee.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 193A, 193B and 193C and declare my interest as chair of the National Society for Education. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for her support of Amendments 193A and 193B. I will address these two first and together.
These two amendments are about good communication. They would require the chief inspector to include the relevant religious body along with the academy proprietor and the Secretary of State when a report is circulated at the conclusion of an inspection of a multi-academy trust that contains a school with a religious foundation. For example, in the case of the Church of England, the relevant body would be the Diocesan Board of Education.
Under the DBE Measure 2021, DBEs have a range of duties and powers, including advice-giving, data analysis and information gathering in relation to their schools and academies. Timely receipt of a multi-academy trust’s inspection report will enable the fulfilment of these duties and powers.
I seek the Minister’s assurance that these straightforward amendments, enabling good communication and the delivery of statutory duty, will find their way into the Bill.
Amendment 193C in my name would ensure that where multi-academy trusts contain schools with a religious designation, these are inspected on and held to account for their ethos, religious education and collective worship.
At present, over 42% of Church of England’s schools are academies, amounting to over 20% of all academies in England. When we include Roman Catholic academies and those with other religious foundations, the total percentage rises still further to approximately one-third of the entire academy estate.
All these academies will fall under the proposed new requirement for the inspection of multi-academy trusts. However, at present there is no provision for the specialist denominational inspection of those multi-academy trusts that have direct responsibility for the leadership and governance of academies with a religious foundation. This contrasts markedly with current arrangements, in which individual schools and academies with a religious foundation are inspected by the relevant religious body under Section 48 of the Education Act 2005 and by the contractual provisions of an academy’s funding agreement.
There is no provision within the Bill as drafted which would mirror Section 48 provision and deliver expert, individual, school-based evaluation and accountability for multi-academy trusts containing schools of a religious character and foundation. This is an omission or oversight with potential to affect adversely the quality of accountability and inspection for approximately a third of the academy estate.
Amendment 193C addresses this omission by seeking to mirror current Section 48 provision and good practice for multi-academy trusts containing schools with a religious foundation. Led by the inspectorates of religious bodies such as the Statutory Inspection of Anglican and Methodist Schools, inspections would combine, as they do most effectively today, the application of expert religious knowledge with inspection expertise to ensure that the accountability regime for the proprietors of academies includes all significant elements of the life, leadership and governance of schools in their purview. I thank the Minister for engaging with key partners in educational delivery within the National Society for Education and the Catholic Education Service ahead of this debate. I trust that the Government will continue to work with us to find a way forward and to address this omission.
To conclude, Amendments 193A and 193B are intended as friendly, simple, straightforward insertions to enhance lines of communication and to keep the relevant religious body informed when one of its schools is inspected. On Amendment 193C, however, I remain deeply concerned that, without the provision outlined in the amendment in my name, providers of schools of religious character will be left with wholly inadequate inspection arrangements. This is an entirely avoidable state of affairs which, if unaddressed, as I said in earlier comments, will affect approximately a third of the academy estate and represent a backward step from current inspection arrangements under Section 48 of the Education Act 2005. Can the Minister give assurances that she will bring forward proposals to address the omission I identify and work with the National Society for Education and the Catholic Education Service to bring forward proposals or pilots that address our concerns prior to Third Reading?
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, a substantial new chapter is being added to the Bill on Report by the Government’s Amendment 193, which provides for the inspection of multi-academy trusts. This has considerable significance for the regulation of all academies, and I must therefore make some wider points before I turn to Amendments 193D and 193E in the name of my noble friend Lady Barran, to which I have put my name. I must also declare my interest as a former Ofsted chief inspector who has advocated strongly for MAT inspection for many years.
Everyone is familiar with school inspection. For more than 30 years, this was unequivocally framed by government as a public accountability mechanism to defend the interests of children and parents. The very last strands of support activity were removed from Ofsted more than a decade ago so as to avoid any blurring. Published inspection judgments and reports with real consequences are a powerful regulatory force, precisely because they have real traction. This model has long been the subject of relentless hostility and efforts to undermine it by some within the sector.
But the law relating to school inspections has not kept pace with the evolution of sector structures over the past 20 years. The academy trust model, which now goes back 20 years, places legal responsibility for a school unequivocally with the trust board, not with a school-level governing body or an individual head teacher. Successive Governments chose to keep inspection to school level while evolving a separate regulatory approach for trusts. That separate approach broadly consists of private review within DfE of published and other data and periodic private discussion between each MAT and the DfE regulatory team, with escalation to Ministers where necessary. In the main, trust-level concerns are dealt with privately, except where the most serious failings justify terminating a funding agreement or acting against an individual. This mechanism is highly susceptible to producer capture of government —I know of more than a few examples—and it creates an imbalance; it feels unfair to many heads and those beneath them, as individual schools are publicly reported on.
There is also no clear dividing line between schools and trusts. Trusts may choose to centralise many activities, including the choice of curriculum, lesson planning, teacher training and professional development, assessment, pastoral approaches and behaviour policies as well as back-office functions. A centralised MAT with 60 schools will have around 15 inspections a year. In each of these, inspectors must ask questions about decisions, some of which are not taken at school level, to form a rounded view of the quality of education and safeguarding in the school. A judgment of school quality may have to encompass aspects that are not under the control of a head teacher, which of course feels unfair to those heads. The current model also makes it particularly hard for government to intervene when a MAT is slightly underperforming across the board but no one school is severely failing. All this makes clear that a refresh is sorely needed, and here I am only repeating what I have said publicly in the past. I genuinely welcome the Government’s decision to act.
Turning to the detail, Clause 193 in effect creates a skeleton containing the powers and obligations to put in a system of MAT inspection, but no policy proposals have been published to explain the set of purposes. MAT inspections may be purely to facilitate accountability to government and to justify inspections at MAT level. They may be intended to increase transparency for parents. They may be intended to function partly or entirely as a support mechanism for trusts. But we do not know. Nor do we know how they are intended to interact with school inspections, whose purposes have also become blurred. The Government no longer link defined consequences to overall inspection judgments, which I believe, and hear from many, has increased uncertainty and anxiety in the school sector.
The Government have also not clarified whether the policy purposes of school inspections have changed. I infer that true education quality is not the highest priority for the Government because they have accepted the current school inspection approach, which has startlingly removed all but a cursory scrutiny of education itself so as to make more time for specific government priorities such as attendance, belonging and now, of course, mobile phone policy enforcement. In so doing, government and Ofsted have intentionally, and in my view unwisely, made themselves blind to all the many ways that good education can be limited and compromised if school quality judgments are predicated too narrowly on outcomes. This watering down of school inspection makes it even more important that the MAT inspection model is well conceived, well defined, well understood and likely to be fully effective. It is also highly desirable for the judgments to be made independently of Ministers if they are to have the legitimacy that they need as a basis for government intervention.
That brings me to Amendments 193D and 193E. First, these amendments seek to ensure that the necessary work of consultation, piloting and reporting is done before the new sections are commenced and the full inspection regime begins. This period could be used to calibrate the range of judgments needed and the corresponding range of regulatory interventions, and to clarify the purposes. The thresholds also need to be tested against realistic system improvement capacity so that this can be allocated effectively.
Secondly, the amendments aim to create a coherent overall model that reflects the multi-level nature of MATs as well as the variety of organisational models that they deploy. One trust may operate in a highly integrated way, with all major decisions and the finances controlled centrally and local head teachers focused on effective implementation of the central model; another trust—including many of the faith trusts—may operate a highly devolved model, leaving most matters to heads and determining only aspects of faith-related provision and, perhaps, core administrative systems and processes. At the moment, there is only limited evidence on the relative effectiveness of different models, at least as far as I know. The trust inspection may generate some good evidence but, in the absence of stronger evidence, inspections should not force MATs into a particular operating model, as I know some fear.
Thirdly, the amendments ensure that inspection takes account of a MAT’s ability to manage schools efficiently, as well as their education quality and other direct child-facing aspects. This has the potential to simplify and to unify the regulatory arrangements for trusts. There are parallels with the model used in the Netherlands, which has structures similar to multi-academy trusts. There does need to be join-up in the regulatory system. It is hard for government to make and sustain decisions if it is getting conflicting messages from different strands of monitoring. I hesitate to say it, but overall judgments have their place.
Finally, I would value the Minister’s assurance that she will make it explicit that the conception of quality against which inspection is carried out should be grounded in a strong evidential foundation, in trusts as in schools, and that the regulatory framework should be revised whenever the accumulation of evidence points towards a change.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 193A and 193B in the names of the right Reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and myself. These amendments are very simple. They seek to address a small technical omission regarding the inspection of multi-academy trusts when they are the proprietor of one or more schools with a religious character.
When Ofsted inspects schools with a religious character, one of the organisations it is required to notify of the outcome of state inspection is the religious authority responsible for running the school. My noble friend the Minister’s amendment to introduce inspections of multi-academy trusts is welcome, but I feel that the amendment does not replicate the duty of notifying religious authorities for these inspections.
Multi-academy trusts play an important role in creating and upholding the ethos and community in which schools with a religious character operate, so it is essential that the result of any inspection of the trusts that contains such schools must be shared with the relevant religious authority. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth has already said, it is an issue of communication.
These amendments would ensure that the inspection of multi-academy trusts which contain schools with a religious character is consistent with the individual inspection of those schools. I have worked closely with the Catholic Education Service and with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth in bringing these amendments to your Lordships’ House today, and I am sure that the representatives of other religious groups which run schools would also support them. Therefore, I hope that my noble friend the Minister will be able to accept these amendments today or give her assurances that under the Government’s amendment the relevant religious authorities will be notified about the results of multi-academy trust inspections when those trusts are the proprietors of schools under their denominational jurisdiction. I also support Amendment 193C in the name of the right reverend Prelate.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, this is a big change in the education service. I welcome the Government bringing this amendment, because it was not there in Committee and I think it is a response to speeches made on both sides of the House, so I want to put on record my thanks to the Minister and her team for working in between Committee and Report to give us something. It deserves a longer debate than it will get at this time of the night, so it is a shame that it has arrived so late.
I want to seek one reassurance. It must get the prize for the longest amendment because it is pages long. But it also gets the prize for the longest amendment that does not say very much. That is basically the first question I want to ask. Will the Minister give assurance that we will have opportunity to discuss the detail of this? It is a big change, and some of the points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman, need to be addressed. Secondly, and this is the most important thing for me, could the Minister give an assurance that she will endeavour to make the inspection such that schools do not feel they have been inspected twice, and that it is an inspection of the MAT ownership or governance and not the schools themselves?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak chiefly to Amendment 196A in my name and to Amendment 197 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Storey, to which I also attached my name. Given the hour, I am going to restrain myself on a lot of things. It is a great pity that we are doing this important business at this hour. The Minister, in introducing this group, talked about the need to improve the accountability of multi-academy trusts, which has not kept pace with the growth of MATs. We have heard agreement on that from right across the House. With that in mind, I am going to start with Amendment 197, which we have not yet heard the formal introduction of. I will not go through it in detail, but it looks at the remuneration of chief executives of multi-academy trusts. It includes the provision, under parliamentary scrutiny, to impose limits on that pay.
It might be a difficult job, but I think I am about to shock the House at 11.23 pm. A few days ago, the website Education Uncovered produced some figures on the pay of CEOs of multi-academy trusts—not the biggest ones but the group of the next biggest ones, ranked from 11 to 25 on the number of pupils. A £220,000 salary is becoming standard for these multi-academy trust CEOs—and you can add a pension of about £50,000. This is significantly more than the Prime Minister is paid. We have a fat-cat pay problem right across our society, but here we are talking about public funds allocated for children’s education going to fat-cat pay.
I said that the Education Uncovered figure was for 2025. For the largest trusts, I had to go back to a Schools Week investigation from last March looking at some of the highest pay, and a year ago the CEO’s pay at one of the multi-academy trusts had crossed the £500,000 a year threshold, while three more were on more than £300,000 a year. Unsurprisingly, the National Governance Association told Schools Week that benchmarking seemed to be leading to inflationary pressure—something some noble Lords here who know quite a bit about the financial sector have seen happening. It really is obscene that this is happening in our schools.
The Education Uncovered study shows that the larger trusts are spending more per pupil on these highly paid staff and less per pupil on pupils in the classroom than are smaller trusts and, particularly in England, local authorities and local authority schools. This is a huge problem of accountability, and I commend the noble Lord, Lord Storey, on bringing forward this amendment and seeking to deal with it. I cannot think of a reason why the Government would not think this a good idea.
I come now—very briefly, given the hour—to my Amendment 196. This follows attempts that I made in Committee, with the assistance of the National Education Union, to create something that would allow schools to get out of this mess when they are just fed up with it. It would allow parents fed up with multi-academy trusts that are not working—we have seen a lot of examples recently of multi-academy trusts imposing on local school communities disciplinary rules that have caused a great deal of upset, concern and fear for the well-being of pupils—a way to get schools out of this system that is not working for them.
In Committee, I brought forward the idea of an academy reversal order. It is very complex, given that schools in multi-academy trusts no longer have their own legal entity, but I made an attempt at doing that. I also attempted to say that it was a duty of the Secretary of State to produce an order like that.
Now, on Report, with Amendment 196A I am calling for the Government to create a duty for them to produce a report on the demand for, desirability of and mechanisms for the conversion of academy-run schools to maintained schools, within two years of the Act calling for a report. That would not direct anything to happen, but it asks for a direction to the Government to think again, in a Bill that already acknowledges that there are huge problems with the academy trust model, ends the presumption that all new schools must be academies and removes the duty to force schools into multi-academy trusts. We are clearly heading in that direction. Let us get ahead of the game and prepare for a future where we put schools back under local democratic control.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, regarding the amendments by my noble friend Lord Storey, research has shown no correlation between the pay of the CEOs of multi-academy trusts and the schools they have responsibility for. I hope the Minister can say whether there will be a mechanism to look at the pay of some of these highly paid officials and what responsibilities they have. There could be cases where people have responsibility for eight to 10 schools but get paid more than people with responsibility for higher numbers. That does not seem fair or right. I know it is late, but I thought it important that I raise this point on behalf of my noble friend.
Baroness Bousted (Lab)
It is really late, but I tabled a similar amendment to this in Committee. Unregulated CEO pay is becoming an ever greater problem in the sector. Last year the policy think tank EDSK called for mandatory CEO pay scales capped at £263,000, with fines for those who did not follow that. The National Governance Association has said that the growing gap between CEO pay and that of other senior leaders—and, I would also say, teachers—risks undermining the collaborative leadership essential to school improvement. I hope the Government will look at this serious problem, which demands action.
Baroness Morgan of Cotes (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to talk briefly about this group of amendments. While I recognise the passion with which the previous three speakers have spoken on CEO remuneration, I do not think that is the main problem in the education system. If we want really good people to head up multi-academy trusts and to do one of the most important jobs in this country, which is to educate the next generation, we should pay them. If that means that the Prime Minister is underpaid, we should be having a separate debate to recognise his leadership and that of anyone else who holds that position.
I want to go back to Amendment 193 and echo the thanks from the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley. I am not sure that it wins the prize for the longest set of amendments, but it is perhaps the speediest set of government amendments. We had this debate in Committee, and voices from all sides of the House recognised that putting in place an inspection regime for the proprietors of multi-academy trusts was overdue. It makes me suspect that the department had these amendments somewhere ready to go when an opportunity presented itself, because we all spend a lot of our time asking the Government to make amendments and are told, “Not now, not this Bill, not quite yet”. Indeed, I had a conversation with the Minister like that just yesterday morning—though it feels like longer ago. We will return to that next week, but I am impressed with how fast these amendments have been proposed. That, of course, means that, as we have heard, because of the hour we are debating this, they will not get all the scrutiny we would like. That is why I think that Amendment 193D from the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, about further consultation or work before these provisions come into effect, would be extremely worth while.
I also want to echo one of the other questions. The question that has been put to me by those from multi-academy trusts is: what is the relationship between this inspection regime and the inspection of individual schools? While there are obviously some large academy trust chains, there are also some much smaller ones, and if they are trying to deal, rightly, with the inspection, particularly the first inspection, of a multi-academy trust proprietorship, what is the relationship between schools and how do we make sure that schools and multi-academy trusts do not feel they are being endlessly inspected and never allowed to get on with the job that we all want them to do, which is educating well the next generation?
I want to speak in support of Amendment 194 as well, because I was not able to speak on Clause 51 in the Committee. This is about academy sponsorship. I know from what we have just heard that not everybody is a fan of academies; I am—I am relentless in my support for them. I think we have finally seen the self-reinforcing, self-improving school system we want in this country. In many places, academy sponsorship is the only option; I am not sure what the other option is. Amendment 194 has nobly attempted to put in place an answer if academy sponsorship is not available. I would like to hear the Minister’s reasons for persisting with the view that good academy sponsors should not be the default, because that is what the academy chains I speak to feel most passionately about. Those that are successful want to make sure that other schools can share in that success.
Finally, it will come as no surprise that I will oppose Amendment 197. As I say, there are issues we should be debating in education other than recognising the enormous contribution made by senior leaders in education—in this case, it is perhaps the heads of multi-academy trust chains—but I would much rather we talk about the quality of the education that our young people are getting than anything else which is a distraction, as Amendment 197 is.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, like others I really regret that we are debating these amendments so late, because they are very important. I will try to get to my key points.
I thank the Minister for Amendment 192 in relation to Clause 50; this addresses some of the concerns that we raised about its scope in Committee and again in the other place. The main substance of this group, as we have heard, is the lengthy, prize-winning Amendment 193, which would allow the Government to introduce mass inspection. We debated this in Committee. It is curious that the Bill has gone through all stages in the other place and only now are we seeing this on Report. Some of the gaps that it reveals are highlighted in the amendment from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and in my Amendments 193D and 193E. We can see that in the breadth of drafting of this amendment, with so much left to secondary legislation giving Secretary of State extremely broad powers—which suggested to me that it was an amendment that was drafted in haste rather than one that was on the shelf. Officials kindly invited me in to talk about the amendment before Christmas, and they argued the case for giving the Secretary of State maximum flexibility. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, said on an earlier group, we have talked about this ad nauseam, and the Government have acted to correct some of it, but this new clause goes in the wrong direction in relation to those powers.
If we think back to the introduction of the new school inspection regime, we see that there was a huge consultation and piloting of the approach, and now we are seeing it rolled out. All my Amendment 193D asks is that we mirror that and do exactly the same. I have suggested a focus in terms of the pilot, which would be to look at MATs that have groups of schools in the following categories. There would be one category where they are significantly underperforming and where there might be a case for intervention; and another would be where they would like to grow and take on other schools—quite rightly, the department would want reassurance that they had the skills to do that well. And then there would be a universal group—at this hour of the night, I cannot think of any other description—to see whether there is a case, at this point, for universal MAT inspection alongside school inspection. In a perfect world, one would have designed a new school inspection regime and a MAT inspection regime together to avoid some of the duplication to which other noble Lords have pointed.
When the Minister sums up, I would be grateful to know whether she can confirm that there is not a plan to inspect single academy trusts, and if there is, what the point of that would be, and that the Government plan to reawaken—or whatever you do to dormant legislation—the inspection of local authorities with regard to that school improvement function. If the Government want to look at school groupings, they should look at all school groupings rather than just one type.
I turn to my Amendment 194, and I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes for her support for it. I did an interview with Schools Week not so long ago—which probably only my children have read, or, in fact, not even my children have read. They asked me what element of the Bill I was most worried about, and I said that it was this clause, which will delay intervention in schools that Ofsted has found unable to meet the new standards and intervention is required.
When we debated this in Committee, the Minister talked about the length of time for intervention, but she knows that the very long cases—some of the same cases are probably still running—typically reflect one of two things, or possibly both. One is where you have rural schools in very remote areas, where there is no other school or trust nearby that could take on and support the school adequately. The second is where significant funding is required from the department, particularly in relation to buildings or to bridge budget deficits if the school role has fallen significantly, and a lot of arm wrestling goes on, which takes time.
The new RISE teams will not be able to address either type of case any faster than the previous system. My amendment would avoid delay and judicial review, and, most importantly, it would make sure that children were back in high performing schools as quickly as possible. I also agree completely with what my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes said about Amendment 197. With that, rather than having to test the opinion of the House, I hope that the Minister will come back with more positive and constructive responses.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
My Lords, despite the lateness of the hour, we have had a good discussion on the issues raised in group 10.
I turn to the amendments that have been discussed during this debate. I will start with Amendments 193A and 193B, tabled in the names of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and my noble friend Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and Amendment 193C, tabled by the right reverend Prelate. These relate to the inspection of trusts, including academies that have been designated
“as having a religious character”.
Amendments 193A and 193B propose additional requirements for Ofsted to share trust inspection reports—what the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend described as “important communication issues”. I recognise the importance of both informing the relevant religious authorities about trust-level inspections and ensuring robust oversight of trust leaders in relation to developing and maintaining the religious character of faith-based settings.
On Amendment 193A, I hope that I can provide some reassurance to the right reverend Prelate that there is already a duty on Ofsted to inform religious authorities in advance of a routine trust inspection. Our provisions already include a duty for Ofsted to share reports of routine inspections with the trust, and the Secretary of State has a power to share them with persons it deems appropriate. Ofsted has confirmed that it will always deem a religious authority that it has already informed about an inspection taking place as an appropriate person to receive a report. I can therefore assure noble Lords that religious authorities will always be sent the report by Ofsted.
On Amendment 193B, as religious authorities will always receive a full trust inspection report setting out that a trust is not performing to an acceptable standard, they do not need to be separately notified about a poor inspection outcome. I therefore hope that noble Lords recognise that Amendments 193A and 193B are not necessary.
Turning to Amendment 193C, the current framework for inspecting denominational education and worship is already a complex mixture of statutory and non-statutory provisions. Moving directly to a statutory framework for academy trusts at this stage risks adding further complexity to that element of the inspection. It is therefore important that we take the time necessary to develop any future approach carefully so that trust-level inspection of denominational matters aligns with existing arrangements of this nature for individual settings, and functions coherently with the wider inspection system.
As the right reverend Prelate has identified, officials have had discussions with officers from the Catholic Education Service and the Church of England Education Office. We are committed to working with the churches and other faiths to developing a non-statutory framework as an initial and constructive step, ahead of considering opportunities for potential legislation in the future. That work will include pilots, which have been developed with faith bodies and trusts to pilot inspection of collective worship and denominational education trusts with faith schools.
Baroness Smith of Malvern
“Inspection of Academy proprietors(1) In Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Inspections), after Chapter 2, insert—“Chapter 2AInspection of Academy proprietorsInspection
122A Duty to inspect Academy proprietors at specified intervals(1) The Chief Inspector must— (a) conduct inspections of every Academy proprietor at such intervals as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State, and(b) prepare a written report on completion of each inspection.(2) The Secretary of State may by regulations provide that subsection (1) does not apply in relation to specified categories of Academy proprietor in specified circumstances.(3) An Academy proprietor in relation to which subsection (1) does not apply by virtue of regulations under subsection (2) is an “exempt proprietor”.(4) When conducting an inspection under this section, the Chief Inspector must have regard to any views about the matters listed in section 122B(2) which are expressed to the Chief Inspector by—(a) such persons as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State;(b) such other persons as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(5) Subsection (1) has effect subject to subsection 122E.(6) An inspection which is required under this section must not extend to—(a) denominational education provided at an Academy which has been designated as having a religious character, or which is to be treated as having been so designated by virtue of section 6(8) of the Academies Act 2010, or(b) the content of collective worship at such an Academy.122B Report of section 122A inspection(1) It is the general duty of the Chief Inspector, when conducting an inspection under section 122A, to report on the quality and effectiveness of the Academy proprietor’s leadership, management and governance in connection with its role as an Academy proprietor.(2) The Chief Inspector’s report must (in particular) cover—(a) the quality and effectiveness of any activities undertaken by the Academy proprietor to secure the provision of a quality education to registered pupils and students of its Academies;(b) the quality and effectiveness of the Academy proprietor’s governance and executive leadership;(c) the quality and effectiveness of any activities undertaken by the Academy proprietor to promote the wellbeing of children and young persons;(d) the quality and effectiveness of any activities undertaken by the Academy proprietor to secure improvements in its Academies;(e) the quality and effectiveness of the Academy proprietor’s management of its resources;(f) such other matters as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) The Chief Inspector must send a copy of a report under section 122A(1)(b) to—(a) the Academy proprietor, and(b) the Secretary of State.(4) The Academy proprietor must—(a) make a copy of any report sent to it under subsection (3) available for inspection by members of the public,(b) provide a copy of the report, free of charge, upon request, and (c) take such steps as are reasonably practicable to secure that every registered parent of a pupil at an Academy school or alternative provision Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor receives a copy of the report within five working days following receipt of the report by the Academy proprietor.(5) The Chief Inspector may send a copy of the report to such other persons as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(6) The Chief Inspector may arrange for the report to be published in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(7) In this section—“child” means a person aged under 18, and references to “children” are to be read accordingly;“wellbeing” , in relation to a child or young person, means their wellbeing so far as relating to the matters mentioned in section 10(2) of the Children Act 2004;“working day” means a day other than a Saturday, a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or a bank holiday under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971;“young person” means any of the persons mentioned in section 10(9) of the Children Act 2004.122C Other inspections(1) The Chief Inspector must inspect and report on any Academy proprietor, or category of Academy proprietor, in connection with its role as an Academy proprietor, if requested to do so by the Secretary of State.(2) The Chief Inspector may inspect and report on any Academy proprietor, in connection with its role as an Academy proprietor, in circumstances where there is no requirement to do so under any other provision of this Chapter.(3) If the Chief Inspector carries out an inspection under subsection (2) in response to a request from the Academy proprietor, the Chief Inspector may charge the Academy proprietor for the cost of the inspection.(4) An inspection which is conducted under this section must not extend to—(a) denominational education provided at an Academy which has been designated as having a religious character, or which is to be treated as having been so designated by virtue of section 6(8) of the Academies Act 2010, or(b) the content of collective worship at such an Academy.(5) The Chief Inspector may arrange for a report under this section to be published in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.122D Duty to notify certain persons of inspection(1) Before conducting an inspection under section 122A the Chief Inspector must notify—(a) the Academy proprietor, and(b) any relevant religious body.(2) If the Academy proprietor is notified by the Chief Inspector that the Chief Inspector is proposing to inspect the Academy proprietor under section 122A, the Academy proprietor must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to notify the following persons of the time when the inspection is to take place—(a) the registered parents of registered pupils at any Academy school or alternative provision Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(b) the members of the Academy proprietor (if any). (3) If the Academy proprietor is notified by the Chief Inspector that the Chief Inspector is electing to treat, or is required by the Secretary of State to treat, an inspection under section 122C as if it were an inspection under section 122A as a result of the exercise of a power under section 122E, the Academy proprietor must take such steps as are reasonably practicable to notify the following persons that the inspection is being so treated, and of the time when the inspection is to take place—(a) the registered parents of registered pupils at any Academy school or alternative provision Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(b) the members of the Academy proprietor (if any);(c) any relevant religious body.(4) Any notification given under subsection (2)(a) or (3)(a) must include a statement, in a form approved by the Chief Inspector, inviting the registered parents of registered pupils to inform the Chief Inspector of their views on matters relating to—(a) the Academy at which their child is a registered pupil;(b) the Academy proprietor.122E Power or duty to treat other inspection as section 122A inspection(1) The Chief Inspector may elect for an inspection under section 122C of an Academy proprietor to which section 122A applies to be treated as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(1), section 122B(3) to (6) and section 122H.(2) In the case of an inspection of an exempt proprietor under section 122C, the Chief Inspector may elect to treat the inspection as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(4) and sections 122B and 122H.(3) The Secretary of State may require the Chief Inspector to treat an inspection under section 122C(1) of an Academy proprietor to which section 122A applies as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(1) and (4) and sections 122B and 122H.(4) In the case of an inspection of an exempt proprietor under section 122C(1), the Secretary of State may require the Chief Inspector to treat the inspection as if it were an inspection under section 122A for the purposes of section 122A(4) and sections 122B and 122H.(5) In this section, “exempt proprietor” has the meaning given by section 122A(3).122F Framework for inspections under this Chapter(1) The Chief Inspector must devise—(a) a common set of principles applicable to all inspections conducted under this Chapter, or(b) two or more common sets of principles each of which is applicable to a particular description of such inspections.(2) A set of principles devised under subsection (1)(a) or (b) is referred to in this section as a “framework”.(3) If the Chief Inspector devises two or more frameworks under subsection (1)(b), the Chief Inspector must ensure that, taken together, they cover all inspections conducted under this Chapter.(4) A framework must cover such matters as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(5) The Chief Inspector must publish a framework in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate. (6) The Chief Inspector may at any time revise a framework.(7) The Chief Inspector must publish a revised framework in such manner as the Chief Inspector considers appropriate.(8) In devising or revising a framework, the Chief Inspector must have regard to guidance given from time to time by the Secretary of State.Powers of entry etc.
122G Powers of entry etc. for purposes of inspection(1) This section applies to an inspection conducted by the Chief Inspector under this Chapter.(2) The Chief Inspector may, at any reasonable time, enter—(a) any premises of the Academy proprietor;(b) the premises of any Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(c) any other premises on which, by virtue of arrangements made by the Academy proprietor, any pupils or students who are registered at an Academy within paragraph (b) are receiving part of their education from any person (“the provider”);(d) any premises of the provider used in connection with the provision by the provider of that education.(3) The Chief Inspector may, at any reasonable time, inspect, take copies of, or take away such of the following as the Chief Inspector considers relevant to the discharge of the Chief Inspector’s functions under this Chapter—(a) any documents or records kept by the Academy proprietor;(b) any documents or records kept by an Academy of which the Academy proprietor is the proprietor;(c) any documents or records kept by the provider relating to the provision of education by virtue of arrangements made by the Academy proprietor.(4) The power in subsection (3) includes—(a) power to require any person holding or accountable for any such documents or records to produce them, and(b) in relation to any such documents or records kept by means of a computer, power to require them to be produced in a form in which they are legible and can be taken away.(5) In connection with inspecting any such documents or records the Chief Inspector—(a) may obtain access to, and inspect and check the operation of, any computer and associated apparatus or material which the Chief Inspector considers is or has been in use in connection with the documents or records, and(b) may require a person within subsection (6) to afford the Chief Inspector such reasonable assistance as the Chief Inspector requires for that purpose.(6) A person is within this subsection if that person is—(a) the person by whom or on whose behalf the computer is or has been used, or(b) a person having charge of, or otherwise concerned with the operation of, the computer, apparatus or material.(7) A person is guilty of an offence if that person intentionally obstructs the Chief Inspector in the exercise of any function conferred by this Chapter.(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. Academy proprietors not performing to acceptable standard
122H Academy proprietors not performing to acceptable standard(1) Subsections (2) to (4) apply if, on completion of an inspection under section 122A, the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that—(a) the persons responsible for leading, managing and governing the Academy proprietor are failing to lead, manage or govern the Academy proprietor to an acceptable standard, or(b) the Academy proprietor is failing to lead, manage or govern an Academy of which it is the proprietor to an acceptable standard.(2) The Chief Inspector must—(a) send a draft of the report of the inspection to the Academy proprietor, and(b) consider any comments on the draft that are made by the Academy proprietor within such period as may be specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State.(3) Where, after complying with subsection (2), the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that the case falls within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1), the Chief Inspector must—(a) without delay, notify the following persons in writing of that opinion—(i) the Secretary of State,(ii) the Academy proprietor, and(b) state that opinion in the report of the inspection.(4) A notification made under subsection (3)(a) must also record—(a) in a case within subsection (1)(a), whether the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that the persons responsible for leading, managing and governing the Academy proprietor are demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the Academy proprietor;(b) in a case within subsection (1)(b), whether the Chief Inspector is of the opinion that the Academy proprietor is demonstrating the capacity to secure the necessary improvement in the Academy.Supplementary
122I Regulations under Chapter 2A(1) Regulations under this Chapter may—(a) make different provision for different purposes;(b) make consequential provision.(2) A statutory instrument containing provision made under any of the following provisions of this Chapter (whether alone or with other provision) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament—(a) section 122A(2);(b) section 122B(2)(f);(c) section 122F(4).(3) A statutory instrument containing regulations made under any other provision of this Chapter is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.122J Interpretation of Chapter 2A(1) In this Chapter—“Academy” means an educational institution to which Academy arrangements relate;“Academy arrangements” has the meaning given by section 1 of the Academies Act 2010;“Academy proprietor” is a person who, in pursuance of Academy arrangements, is the proprietor of an Academy; “Academy school” has the meaning given by section 1A of the Academies Act 2010;“alternative provision Academy” has the meaning given by section 1C of that Act;“denominational education” , in relation to an Academy, means religious education which—(a) is provided in accordance with—(i) any provisions of the trust deed affecting the Academy which relate to the teaching and learning of religious education, or(ii) the tenets of the religion or religious denomination in relation to which the Academy is designated, and(b) is not required by Academy arrangements to be given in accordance with the requirements for agreed syllabuses in section 375(3) of the Education Act 1996;“parent” has the meaning given by section 576 of that Act;“registered” , in relation to the parents of pupils at an Academy school or alternative provision Academy, means shown in the register kept under section 434 of that Act;“registered pupil” , in relation to an Academy school or alternative provision Academy, means a person registered as a pupil in that register;“relevant religious body” , in relation to an Academy, means—(a) in the case of a Church of England Academy or a Roman Catholic Church Academy, the appropriate diocesan authority,(b) in any other case, such body or person as is specified in the Academy arrangements relating to the Academy as representing the religion or religious denomination in relation to which the Academy is designated, andin the case of an Academy designated in relation to more than one religion or religious denomination, references to “the relevant religious body” are to be read as references to all of the relevant religious bodies applicable to the Academy;“trust deed” , in relation to an Academy, includes any instrument (other than the articles or memorandum of association) regulating the constitution of the Academy proprietor or the maintenance, management or conduct of the Academy.(2) In subsection (1)—(a) “Church of England Academy” means an Academy in the Province of Canterbury or York in relation to which the religion or religious denomination specified in the order designating the Academy as having a religious character is “Church of England” and “appropriate diocesan authority”, in relation to such an Academy, means the Diocesan Board of Education for the diocese of the Church of England in which the school is situated, and(b) “Roman Catholic Church Academy” means an Academy in relation to which the religion or religious denomination specified in the order designating the Academy as having a religious character is “Roman Catholic” and “appropriate diocesan authority”, in relation to such an Academy, means the bishop of the Roman Catholic diocese in which the Academy is situated.(3) For the purposes of this Chapter, an Academy has been “designated as having a religious character” if it has been so designated by an order under—(a) section 69(3) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 by virtue of section 124B(2) of that Act, or (b) section 8A(1) of the Academies Act 2010 (16 to 19 academies having religious character), andreferences to the order designating the Academy as having a religious character should be read accordingly.”(2) The Academies Act 2010 is amended in accordance with subsections (3) to (5).(3) After section 2A insert—“2AA Academy agreements: provision about failing Academy proprietors(1) An Academy agreement must include provision allowing the Secretary of State to terminate the agreement if the Chief Inspector has given notice under section 122H(3)(a) of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 that—(a) the persons responsible for leading, managing and governing the Academy proprietor are failing to lead, manage or govern the Academy proprietor to an acceptable standard, or(b) the Academy proprietor is failing to lead, manage or govern an Academy of which it is the proprietor to an acceptable standard.(2) The Academy agreement must require the Secretary of State, before terminating the agreement on one of those grounds, to give the proprietor a termination warning notice.(3) A termination warning notice is a notice—(a) requesting that the Academy proprietor respond to the Secretary of State by making representations, or(b) requiring the Academy proprietor—(i) to take specified action by a specified date, and(ii) to respond to the Secretary of State by making representations, or by agreeing to take that action, by a specified date.(4) The Academy agreement must provide that, where a termination warning notice under subsection (3)(b) is given to the Academy proprietor on one of the grounds specified in subsection (1), the power to terminate the agreement is available only if the proprietor has failed to comply with the termination warning notice (whether by failing to take specified action, or to respond, on time).”(4) For section 2C (new academy agreements) substitute—“2C Sections 2A, 2AA and 2B supplementary - new agreements(1) An Academy agreement made on or after 18 April 2016, but before the day on which section [inspection of Academy proprietors] of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force may include further provision about—(a) the procedure for terminating the agreement in accordance with the provision required by section 2A or 2B;(b) the consequences of terminating the agreement in accordance with that provision.(2) An academy agreement made on or after the day on which section [inspection of Academy proprietors] of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force may include further provision about—(a) the procedure for terminating the agreement in accordance with the provision required by section 2A, 2AA or 2B;(b) the consequences of terminating the agreement in accordance with that provision.(3) Section 2D makes provision about agreements entered into before those dates.”(5) For section 2D (old academy agreements) substitute— “2D Sections 2A, 2AA and 2B supplementary - old agreements(1) An old Academy agreement is to be treated as if it included the new termination powers.(2) A pre-section 2AA agreement is to be treated as if it included the section 2AA termination powers.(3) A provision of an old Academy agreement that relates to the procedure for terminating the agreement does not apply to the new termination powers.(4) A provision of a pre-section 2AA agreement that relates to the procedure for terminating the agreement does not apply to the section 2AA termination powers.(5) Subsections (6) and (7) apply where an old Academy agreement or a pre-section 2AA Academy agreement—(a) contains provision about the consequences of terminating the agreement (“relevant provision”), and(b) the relevant provision is expressed in a way that—(i) in the case of an old Academy agreement, is capable of covering termination in accordance with the new termination powers;(ii) in the case of a pre-section 2AA agreement, is capable of covering termination in accordance with the section 2AA termination powers.(6) The relevant provision applies to termination in accordance with—(a) in the case of an old Academy agreement, the new termination powers;(b) in the case of a pre-section 2AA agreement, the section 2AA termination powers.(7) If the relevant provision sets out different consequences depending on whether the agreement is terminated on the ground that the proprietor has breached the Agreement or on other grounds—(a) in the case of an old Academy agreement, termination in accordance with the new termination powers is to be treated as termination on the grounds of breach by the proprietor, and(b) in the case of a pre-section 2AA agreement, termination in accordance with the section 2AA termination powers, is to be treated as termination on the grounds of breach by the proprietor..(8) In this section—“new termination powers” , in relation to an Academy agreement, means the powers to terminate in accordance with the provision required by sections 2A, 2AA and 2B;“old Academy agreement” means an Academy agreement made before 18 April 2016;“pre-section 2AA agreement” means an Academy agreement made on or after the 18 April 2016, but before the day on which section [inspection of Academy proprietors] of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force;“section 2AA termination powers” in relation to an Academy agreement, means the powers to terminate in accordance with the provision required by section 2AA.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would amend Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 to establish a statutory regime for the inspection by Ofsted of Academy trusts. It would also amend the Academies Act 2010 to permit termination of a trust’s funding agreements in specified circumstances arising from an inspection.
Baroness Barran
“122HA Consultation prior to inspections under this Chapter(1) Prior to sections 122A to 122H coming into force, the Secretary of State must undertake a consultation on—(a) the proposed purpose, scope, frequency and framework of inspections of proprietors of academies, and(b) the impact of the proposed inspections of academy providers on the purpose, scope, frequency and framework of inspections of individual schools.(2) The consultation must include the following stakeholders—(a) His Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Education, Children’s Services and Skills,(b) proprietors of academies,(c) organisations representing teachers and other school staff, and(d) such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, including parent groups and other interested organisations.(3) The Secretary of State must publish an impact assessment that—(a) assesses the interaction between the proposed inspections of academy proprietors and existing inspections of individual schools under Chapter 1 of Part 8 of the Education and Inspections Act 2006 (Ofsted inspections), and(b) sets out the likely resource and administrative implications for both the Office for Standards in Education, Children's Services and Skills and academy trusts.122HB Pilot scheme of inspections(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations made before the end of the relevant period, ensure that provisions under this Chapter have been trialled under a pilot scheme.(2) The pilot scheme must—(a) assess the effectiveness of multi-academy trusts;(b) take into account—(i) variations in multi-academy trusts models, and(ii) the level of centralisation in the structure of the multi-academy trust;(c) be informed by—(i) school-level inspections;(ii) financial information held by the Department for Education regarding the multi-academy trust.(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), the following proprietors of Academies should be included in the pilot scheme—(a) proprietors of academies whose schools are on average significantly under-performing, or which are not providing value for money;(b) proprietors of academies which are seeking to expand and enter into new partnerships with schools;(c) a number of proprietors of academies found by Ofsted to be achieving an acceptable level of performance, to establish the value of universal inspection.(4) The “relevant period” is the period of two years beginning with the day on which section 50 of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 comes fully into force.” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to ensure that new provisions on the inspection of multi-academy trusts are not commenced until the Secretary of State has carried out a consultation, consulted key stakeholders including Ofsted, published an impact assessment, and laid before Parliament both a report on that consultation and a statement of the purpose of inspections of multi academy trusts and of individual schools. It would also require The Secretary of State to conduct a pilot scheme of inspections.
Baroness Barran (Con)
I think the Minister said nearly everything that we were hoping to hear. Perhaps she can also confirm in writing that the different purposes of MAT inspection and school inspection will be set out clearly in the Government’s guidance. I welcome her reassurance.
Baroness Barran
“(a) in subsection (A1), at the end insert “unless the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available”;(b) after subsection (A1) insert—“(A2) Where the Secretary of State determines that no suitable sponsor is available, the Secretary of State must, within 14 days, publish a plan to secure appropriate governance and leadership of the school and to secure its rapid improvement.(A3) A plan published under subsection (A2) must include—(a) the parties with responsibility for the school and its improvement,(b) the parties who will take action to improve provision in the school,(c) the resources that will be provided to the relevant parties, including who will provide the resources and when the resources will be provided, and(d) the intended outcomes of the plan, with the relevant timetables for the outcomes.(A4) The Secretary of State must report annually to Parliament on—(a) the number of times the Secretary of State has published a plan under subsection (A2),(b) the resources which have been provided as part of any plans, and(c) the outcomes of any plans.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to retain the existing requirement to make an academy order unless the Secretary of State determines there is no suitable sponsor available.
Baroness Barran (Con)
Unfortunately, I was not convinced by the Minister’s response and I wish to test the opinion of the House.